Identifying Scammers

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers/Freedom, posted by Cali vet on Dec 17, 2001


True it's an open forum and true Patrick sets the rules. I'm not stopping Digital from continuing to post as he sees fit. I have neither the power nor the inclination.  

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

[Hoda]

... in response to Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001


Your elequoent style of putting issues into proper perspective is always appreciated & respected here. There are always two sides to each story. It's a shame, we can't get more of the "other" side to post about the behavior of men who visit these ladies. I recall some time ago, Patrick writing that he felt, that me going down south needed to be scrutinized as much, if not more, than the women they were visiting. I've seen the "Ugly" on both sides of the equation. It's these people who give the process of searching & being found by love, outside of the U.S. & Canada a bad name....

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

[El Diablo]

... in response to Bravo EL-D....Well done, Well said!, posted by Hoda on Dec 17, 2001

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  

[Hoda]

... in response to Re: Bravo EL-D....Well done, Well said!, posted by El Diablo on Dec 18, 2001


EL-D...

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

[pack]

... in response to Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001

EL D just curious do you know this woman?

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by pack on Dec 17, 2001


I described some of my encounters with her in some detail below.  I don't particularly like her but that's neither here nor there.  For me this isn't about her at all (she's just another agency gal to me), this is about fairness and about precedent.  I'm only one person but I'm trying to discourage people on this board from accusing other people by name and photo while providing absolutely NO detail of the alleged actions.

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

[Ralph]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001

That is one of the biggest problems with this board. The "old boys network" approach. Long time members can accuse people of whatever they wish, and there is no criticism, but god forbid a newbie doesn't know the "rules" yet. They get trashed.

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".

[Hoda]

... in response to Double standards, posted by Ralph on Dec 21, 2001


Check out Raptor's post for 10/18. He openly posted a call for guys to join him & a few of his ex-army buds to go, to BQ. Raptor refuses to offer ANYTHING on his own personal quest to find a lifemate. He refuses to give props to ANY guy, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, who finds or is found by love. Smoking Gun? Don't you find it strange, that he hasn't challenged a single post by me about his status here? Or his what his true agenda is? He knows, I got the 411 on his forays down south! BTW, me & Mal have had a long chat. Believe it or not, we have a couple of common enemies.
Go figure!!!

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!

[Ralph]

... in response to Not at all bro....Strollers usually have..., posted by Hoda on Dec 21, 2001

Hey, I have no idea if he is a stroller or not, could care less actually. My point was, we should give newbies a bit mor slack. Otherwise they never will stick around. A new visitor to the board might read your post and see that there was no "evidence" attached and not understand the etiquette here. I say, politely inform rather than jump all over em.

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

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Not at all bro....Strollers usually ..., posted by Ralph on Dec 21, 2001


Ralph,

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

[El Diablo]

... in response to I did come to the aid of Randy G, posted by El Diablo on Dec 21, 2001

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

[El Diablo]

... in response to I did come to the aid of Randy G, posted by El Diablo on Dec 21, 2001


Ralph look here at this URL. The excitement started with Randy's "Thanks Men" post.  You'll find that I'm supporting Randy all the way down and end up taking HD on with his idea of homework.  Read my posts on "perfect choices" and later "unbelievable post".  Anyway Ralph I'm really surprised you don't remember this.  I remember that you were there, you're not remembering me there also....

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

[El Diablo]

... in response to Double standards, posted by Ralph on Dec 21, 2001

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]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001


Tell it, like it is EL-D! The 3 steps you mentioned should be the bar, for which an accusation of claiming someone to be a scammer should be made. Why is digital hiding his & his so-called friend's ID? So quick to point a finger at someone without access to this forum. For all we know, she just might not have like digital (hard to imagine, huh..lol). He got pissed and decided to trash her here...

Hoda...

[pack]

... in response to Re: Identifying Scammers, posted by El Diablo on Dec 17, 2001

ahh ok i see what you're saying...i agree...especially with your three requirements...makes sence to me!