| ♦ REFRESH to rotate MAAMAW'S CLICKY NOTES thru this space..... Timely Tips, Best of the Boards & More ♦ |
Be sure to visit the Current Message Board when you're finished here. We're very friendly, so don't be shy... just jump right in and post your question. Scams outnumber legitimate biz ops about a bzillion to one, so it's well worth your time. |
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives
Posted By: P. Drammel In Response To: Regarding LINDA CHRISTAS.... It pains me GREATLY to write this: (MaaMaw)
Tuesday, 2 August 2005, at 5:41 p.m.
I think Mel White pointed out that the problem was not so much that all of the "parents" of Linda Christas (LC) already involved in LC were using the same IP address, but that one person (a non-LC parent") came here asking about LC and as if they had no clue about them and were not related to them in any way. Yet, they had the same IP address as those involved in LC. Then an LC "parent came and answered the questions with the same IP address as the one asking the questions.
Am I wrong about this? Sorry if I am.
P. Drammel
> but then again, it isn't the first time I've made a ninny of myself and
> felt the need to fess up -- and if there is one thing I can't *STAND* it's
> a person who won't stand up in public and say, "I SCREWED UP (big
> time)."
> No, this is not motivated by any legal threats since I haven't even
> received any (yet).
> It is motivated by a compulsive case of honesty.
> I can't prove it, but I believe Candice and Becky and Summer and Bev
> *could* all be different people coming through the same IP number.
> I have *no* idea how this works -- none at all -- but I had someone send
> an email query to a "generic help desk address" that I found in
> a discussion on another site (posted by one Summer Mancuso), believing
> that the reply would prove they were lying.
> It didn't.
> The reply came through from IP#67.114.221.239 -- the same as all those
> ladies.
> Bev Crenshaw claimed it is because all emails go through the help desk and
> are then sent on -- but as Roadie pointed out, this is *not* email.
> So please... don't ask me to explain something I can't possibly
> understand. But I personally am convinced they are (or at least they
> could be) different people.
> THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF LINDA CHRISTAS CLASSES:
> I didn't know diddly about her when all this started, and I don't know
> diddly about her now.
> But I do want to make it very clear that the "help desk email"
> comes from the same IP# as four messages on this board (and apparently
> several more that were posted before I got here this morning) -- all
> claiming to be from different people.
> Also, I was surprised to note that 67.114.221.239 seems to be in
> Sacramento after all
> ("adsl-67-114-221-239.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net") (at least I
> assume that's what "scrm" means).
> WHOIS (accessed through SamSpade.org) clearly shows this to be in San
> Ramon, which is 82 miles from Sacramento.
> DO I UNDERSTAND THIS?
> Not a chance.
> DO I BELIEVE THE THREE WOMEN WHO POSTED SUCH GLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS COULD
> ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN FOUR DIFFERENT PEOPLE?
> Oh yes.
> WHAT HAVE LEARNED FROM ALL THIS?
> TO SHUT UP?
> Oh bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!... surely you jest!
> TO BE MORE CAREFUL?
> Yes indeedy.
> I will never again be so quick to assume I understand all this stuff
> (except in cases such as John/Paul/Anthony who got his hiney banned this
> morning, since he acted like an idiot coming out of the gate).
> IT IS NOT OKAY TO POST (OR POSE) AS DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND IN GENERAL, WHEN
> MORE THAN ONE PERSON COMES FROM THE SAME IP#, THEY WILL BE HUNG OUT TO
> DRY...
> but in this case, the people seemed reasonable enough (despite the link at
> the bottom, which was annoying as hell and helped me to jump to
> conclusions).
> But after "Bev Crenshaw" explained it, I think I should have at
> least checked out the possibility instead of assuming it couldn't happen.
> AGAIN, THIS IS *NOT* AN ENDORSEMENT OF LINDA CHRISTAS:
> When asked about it in the past, I saw red flags and pointed them out --
> but personal knowledge of them? I have none.
> End of confession.
> I'm going to go and edit my commentary on the three messages now, since
> all this is almost certainly showing up on the search engines by now and
> just deleting the whole ugly mess wouldn't be fair.
> Luv,
> MaaMaw
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives is maintained with WebBBS 3.11.
|
| PLEASE READ THIS LEGAL NOTICE CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU FILE A LAWSUIT OR EVEN WASTE TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. It has been done before, but never successfully. In fact, the last dodobird who tried it ended up being ordered to pay more than $77,000 in attorney fees ($65,000+ to my attorneys and $12,000+ to my co-defendant's legal advisor).
If your attorney is worth his salt, he's going to tell you that the expense of filing a lawsuit you can't win is a whole lot worse than any "damages" resulting from messages posted on this insignificant little chunk of cyberspace. NEWS FLASH: I didn't just climb down off that ol' turnip truck yesterday. I'm well aware that expressing a negative opinion, relating one's personal experience, and restating provable facts are all legal in this country and do not constitute libel, slander, or defamation -- so you don't want to play games with me, and you sure don't want to start something you aren't prepared to finish. I don't take threats lightly, and I don't accept bribes (or did you call it a "mutually-beneficial arrangement"?). I'll turn you in faster than you can yell, "ARREST ME, I'M SCUM!!" Do yourself a favor and turn your legal team loose in greener pastures. Although we may, from time to time, monitor or review discussions, postings and the like on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, we are under no obligation to do so. We are not responsible or liable for any claim arising from the content of any such discussions or postings or for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information contained within such locations on the Site. You are prohibited from posting or transmitting any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, scandalous, inflammatory, pornographic, or profane materials or any material that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any law. You are likewise prohibited from posting any false claims against any company or individual. We will fully cooperate with any law enforcement authorities or court order requesting or directing us to disclose the identity of anyone posting any such information or materials. By posting messages and/or content on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, you give permission for Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications to display, distribute and use the posting and content for publication, advertising, promotion, excerption or example. You grant Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications complete, perpetual, but non-exclusive rights to use, archive, reproduce, adapt, modify, distribute, sub-license, repurpose, rework, compile, or offer for sale or resale the messages, postings or content appearing on this site in whole or in part, throughout the world and universe, on a royalty-free basis without remuneration. If you cannot accept or agree with the terms of service for this website and discussion board, you are advised not to post on this board. In closing, I would like to remind you once again that it is still legal, in this great country of ours, to express a PERSONAL OPINION, as long as it is presented as opinion and not as fact. And finally, all you scammers out there will do well to remember that TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE against charges of libel, defamation, and slander... so if you're operating just a hop, skip, and jump ahead of the law, you might want to think twice before doing anything stupid... (AND SHAME ON YOU!!). |