Should she report him to Antidate?

[BillyB]

BillyB,
Good luck with using that thought process with any Russian!
 
KenC

Yeah, I know. I was married to one. RW don't forget easy.

[ScottinCrimea]

BillyB,
     But what you are saying is a little off.  if we apply your murderer analogy to this case, you would be saying, "Hey, maybe there were valid reasons for the murder so let's don't punish him.  Let's wait until we have some proof of at least two murders.  Don't share the facts with anyone, let him go, forgive and forget and let God judge him."
     While we shouldn't be the judge, jury and executioner, we should at least report him and the facts to the authorities, whoever they may be. (Don't ANYONE misconstrue this as me thinking AD is an authority).

[BillyB]

BillyB,
     But what you are saying is a little off.  if we apply your murderer analogy to this case, you would be saying, "Hey, maybe there were valid reasons for the murder so let's don't punish him.  Let's wait until we have some proof of at least two murders.  Don't share the facts with anyone, let him go, forgive and forget and let God judge him."
     While we shouldn't be the judge, jury and executioner, we should at least report him and the facts to the authorities, whoever they may be. (Don't ANYONE misconstrue this as me thinking AD is an authority).

Scott, you need to reread what I said. The murderer analogy was not an analogy at all but a fictional situation that was used as an example for how to forgive and forget, not for the RW who got shafted in this thread. Also I mentioned "The murderer must still pay his debt to society for his crime and should not be given a free pass in life because people forgive him." but for some strange reason you interpreted as if  I'm saying to forgive, forget and let the murderer go and let God do all the judging. Time to put the Vodka bottle down.

[ScottinCrimea]

Sorry, BillyB, you need to look up the definition of analogy.  And if you read a little more deeply, you would see that I was providing a different analogy using your same points of reference and was not alluding to your concept of healing and moving on but instead the idea of when we should report a "crime" and when we should just let it go.  The vodka bottle is down, the shot glass is now raised. 

[BillyB]

Sorry, BillyB, you need to look up the definition of analogy.  And if you read a little more deeply, you would see that I was providing a different analogy using your same points of reference and was not alluding to your concept of healing and moving on but instead the idea of when we should report a "crime" and when we should just let it go.  The vodka bottle is down, the shot glass is now raised. 

I've used plenty of analogies throught this thread such as FSUrookie's situation. But instead, you are making an analogy out of a fictional situation I created of a murderer(who is guilty) with this thread's theme story that lacks evidence of a job loss. I simply explained the reasons to forgive and forget since Anastasia might have misunderstood why by using a most tragic situation for effect to drive home the point for "forgiving and forgetting".  First you tell me my analogy was wrong when it wasn't an analogy and it wasn't mine. Now in this post you said you provided an analogy on what I said. That's fine but you did blame me for your actions. That's why I thought you were drunk.

Here's what analogy means: "An extended comparison showing the similarities between two things."

Certainly, I did not do that in my post to Anastasia.

[ScottinCrimea]

BillyB,  I think I would need more vodka to understand the rambling logic of your last post, but I'll try to clear things up for you.  First, I see no point in debating the finer points of the English language with someone who thinks it's okay to say, "I seen' instead of "I saw".  Just go ask your junior high school English teacher if what you expressed was an analogy.  There are some better definitions than the one that you chose. Maybe he/she can explain it to you better.

I didn't disagree or refute your using an analogy to drive home the point of forgiving and forgetting.  I agree with the concept. (By the way, an analogy can be a fictional example).  Where did I say that your analogy was wrong? I said that your logic was a little off as it applied to this case and then I explained why. And if the analogy of the murder wasn't yours, then whose was it? (By the way, an example is something like "A rose is an example of a flower".  An analogy is kind of like an extended example).

I didn't provide "an analogy on" what you said.  I used the same point of reference (the murderer) and provided a different analogy to show how your logic related to certain points of this case didn't apply.  In both cases, we are using the extended example of the murderer to show how one should act in the case being discussed.  In other words we were making an implied comparison between this case and the case of a murderer to clarify a point.

When did I blame you for my actions and what actions did I blame you for?  You lost me on that one.

Okay, time for another shot.  I think I'm way behind you.

[William3rd]

Darn- another good thread heading south. 

The QUESTION was- based on the FACTS presented, should the malefactor in this case be reported to anti-date by the victim.

The ANSWER is- based on 76%  of the vote, YES, report the summbich with his information to anti-date.

And, other than a couple of hold-out jurors who keep on posting hoping to make up in sheer volume for what they fail to get in the court of public opinion, this is the prevailing view.

'Nuff said.

[BillyB]

Where did I say that your analogy was wrong? I said that your logic was a little off as it applied to this case and then I explained why.

A "little off" is a nice way of saying "you're wrong". Then you implied I was for letting criminals off the hook and in the streets by forgiving them which is not a little wrong but very wrong. You did not say my "logic" was off, you said this " But what you are saying is a little off.  if we apply your murderer analogy to this case, you would be saying....."

And if the analogy of the murder wasn't yours, then whose was it?

You answered your question recently

if you read a little more deeply, you would see that I was providing a different analogy using your same points of reference and was not alluding to your concept of healing and moving on but instead the idea of when we should report a "crime" and when we should just let it go

In both cases, we are using the extended example of the murderer to show how one should act in the case being discussed.  

We? You mean you. I didn't use the example of the murderer to show how one should act in the case being discussed. Did you reread what I originally wrote?

When did I blame you for my actions and what actions did I blame you for?  You lost me on that one.

Scott, you provided an analogy of what I wrote and in the same post, you tell me it was my analogy and I was a little off(wrong). You were the one to provide the bad analogy yet blamed me for it.

If you can take my post to Anastasia and show me where I purposely made a murderer analogy to Gator's RW's friend situation, by all means do so otherwise claim that "little off" analogy as your own and let this discussion this die.


William, you mention this thread is based on facts presented and I guess facts are based on what the RW said. She said the man had trouble on his job yet few has accepted it as fact to come to their conclusion. Why be upset when some people considered the man had job trouble as "fact"? Should hold out jurors find people guilty without evidence? If I remember some instructions as a juror, we must presume innocence until proven guilty.

[William3rd]

You need to learn how to read. The facts state that the SMS received from Mr. Scumbag stated he had a job problem. And Mr. Scumbag's statements carry little or no weight.

Jurors are to have the capability to weigh evidence. However, you seem to apply the criminal reasonable doubt standard to a civil preponderance of the evidence case. Its 51% here, not 95%. More likely than not.

Based on your statements in this thread, Phil Spector will want you on that new jury, buddy. Another hung jury coming. Too bad you are out of the area.

I know you want to have the last word and I am going to let ya, but, as an alternative, why dont cha volunteer to help OJ find the real killers of ron and nicole- you know ya want to!!!!! I mean- nobody SAW OJ slice and dice anybody.

[ScottinCrimea]

BillyB,  I can't explain it any clearer so if you aren't getting it then I think best just to just drop it and get back on topic.

To F/U Wm3rd's, post, I think there is some confusion among some here as to the question.  Some are thinking, "Based on the facts presented here, should the malefactor be convicted of a crime and be given punishment?"  If that is the question, I would vote no.  I see the question as, "Based on the facts presented here, should the actions of the malefactor be reported?"

I don't mean to jump into Wm's field of expertise, so he can correct any errors in my thinking.  I see on the news every day where someone is arrested and accused of some crime.  This accusation and the facts on which the accusation are based are there for anyone to see.  The accused has the right to respond to the accusations and his response is also public knowledge.  Based on the accepted facts given by both sides, conclusions can be drawn as to his innocence or guilt.

It all comes down to how this is reported on antidate.  If it is listed as an accusation with the option for him to respond, this is fine.  If it is posted as a "conviction" then I would have a problem with it.

[KenC]

There is also something to be said about the man's track record of telling lies too.  He said he would meet her in Turkey and in fact did not.  He told her he would repay her for her travel expenses and in fact did not.  Why should anyone put any faith in his SMS that he had trouble at work?  That in of itself is a rather weak and ambiguous explanation.

 
Does anyone else but me find using one's superior grammar skills as a point in a debate as more than a bit obnoxious? :noidea: What next?  Spelling errors?
KenC

[ScottinCrimea]

Does anyone else but me find using one's superior grammar skills as a point in a debate as more than a bit obnoxious? :noidea: What next?  Spelling errors?
KenC

KenC, it all started with this statement by BillyB, "The murderer analogy was not an analogy at all.", accusing me of having a lesser knowledge of grammar.  If you consider responding to a challenge as being obnoxious, then perhaps you and I both belong in the OMB (Obnoxious Married Bastards) group.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.....

[William3rd]

Wrong standard guys- liable he be. . . . just like OJ. Liable, but not guilty.

Not a punishment. As I said a few pages earlier- post all of his info and photo but give him an opportunity to respond. which he wont, but perhaps a few other victims might.

Do ya think Mr. Scumbag gives a rat's anus whether he is posted on antidate?!?!?!?! Is he shaking in his boots yet? oooooooo- soooo scared, oh the humanity, oh the stigma. . . . . .

Hey- he got his already. And couldnt care less

Unless, he on these boards right now and seeing what is about to happen and perhaps posting irrational BS to cloud the issue.

[groovlstk]

Two years ago I helped a RW friend of mine put up a profile in the Freeps. I know there are a large number of sick losers who search for things other than a healthy relationship there, but even I was blown away by the sheer number of freaks, perverts, and people with severe mental problems. One thing that struck me is that there are a LOT of guys who are into fantasy relationships. They have no intention of meeting girls, perhaps they're married or they use photos that aren't their own. I'd bet this guy falls into that category. He gets something emotionally from having a beautiful girl pay so much attention to him and go through so much trouble to meet him, but the jig is up when it zero hour arrives and it's time to meet.

People like this guy taint us all, I have no sympathy for him. Regardless of whether he had a real excuse--which I doubt--he never followed up on his promise to repay her. He deserves to have the AD girls perform a castration.

[Zmejka]

Speaking from personal experience and own observations Antidate is regularly frequented by no more than 20 -30 members. Too much noise for nothing! 

Isn't this the same for RWD?

As for the subject of the topic i voted yes. At least he should be posted in "Doubtful" and if there are more posts with the same kind of information from other members - he could be moved to the black list.

[Admin]

Isn't this the same for RWD?

As for the subject of the topic i voted yes. At least he should be posted in "Doubtful" and if there are more posts with the same kind of information from other members - he could be moved to the black list.

You are correct. Antidate has a larger internet 'reach' than RWD, although our demographic of *primary* participants is somewhat different. AD has mostly RW *in* the FSU who participate - RWD has mostly WM (although we are seeing a growing number of RW among our 'core' participants).

I am not sure how active the AD forums are, but RWD has seen increasing participation in the key metric of member growth month after month for some time now. At RWD, the principal area of focus is the Forums - whereas at AD, I imagine the other parts of their site (blacklist and gallery, for example) get a lot of activity.

In any case - both AD and RWD, while being the leaders in their fields - are still pretty small by most internet standards.

- Dan

[BillyB]

There is also something to be said about the man's track record of telling lies too.  He said he would meet her in Turkey and in fact did not. 

Does he say/she say mean anything in court? Probably not. I believe, without evidence, the man said he would pay her way when the meet and he will travel to Turkey. But the condition to travel to Turkey and meet was not satisfied by either party and he may not be liable to pay especially if he could prove he lost money on a non refundable ticket too based on a job loss or having his leg cut off in a job related incident.

Anybody here been a juror? A prosecutor will not choose you if you aren't capable of putting a person in prison if evidence existed. A defense attorney will not choose you if you have a bias against their client or hellbent on sticking everybody in prison without evidence, witnesses or simply based on what they heard from television or a sobbing woman.

If some of you out there want to judge others based on one side of the story, then do so but don't get upset some of us need more evidence or witnesses before hanging a person on antidate.

I enjoy debates like this. It makes me think of how people are and think and even of myself. When looking a Abraham Lincoln's picture on a penny, always remember that he walked 5 miles to return a penny to it's rightful owner. Think about how you measure up to honest Abe? Most everybody, if not everybody here, is not as honest as honest Abe? How many of you belong on an antiscam site? Who here has always kept their word, returned money to it's rightful owner, and payed back what they owe every time? I once picked up money that fell out of a man's pocket and ran up to him to return it instead of keeping it. I returned a dollar to a waitress when she gave me back too much change. I returned $50 to a bank teller who gave me too much, even after she incorrectly counted it in front of me. Yet, I still have much to improve on to be like honest Abe. Now I know some of you want to hang me!

William, OJ was guilty as there was overwhelming evidence although no witnesses. Do you get as upset with attorneys, as you are with me, when they defend their client from yours or try to prosecute your client?

Scott, could you please show me where I accused you of having lessor knowledge of grammer? I can show you where you ridiculed me when I used "seen" instead of "saw". You created an analogy off of something I said and accused me of being a "little off". I do not want the credit for your "little off" analogy. I would never create an analogy to say "let murderers go until there are two murders with "facts" but don't share the facts with anyone". as you implied I did. It's not good to put words in other people's mouths.

[KenC]

Billy,
You are hopeless!!!!!!!  In the court of RWD the guy is guilty of being a scumbag!!!  Deal with it!!!
KenC

[Admin]

Billy,
You are hopeless!!!!!!!  In the court of RWD the guy is guilty of being a scumbag!!!  Deal with it!!!
KenC

I guess so.

A couple of things surprised me about the results.

One is - there seems a surprising willingness to judge another. Some of that willingness is, no doubt, due to the enormous credibility which accompanies Gator (deservedly so) and his rendition of the account. Still, I am slightly surprised to see the numbers of people who would condemn based on one side of the account.

The other thing which surprises me is - the credibility assigned to Antidate. While I was among the first to mention that AD is not the enemy - the vast majority of prior commentary at RWD has been critical of AD - whereas the majority in this topic seems to be ... well, not favorable - but more than merely accepting.

Both of those surprise me some. In the case of the former, it disappoints me a bit. In the case of the latter, I am happy to see a growing acceptance of AD's mission and objective.

FWIW

- Dan

[KenC]

Dan,
Don't get too happy about the acceptance of AD here.  I still think they are a pack of jackals.  Only because the guy is a scumbag do I think he deserves to be thrown to the pack.

As far as me (I will only speak for myself) coming to judgement, I have always based my opinion on the premise that the facts presented were truths.
KenC

[ScottinCrimea]

Scott, could you please show me where I accused you of having lessor knowledge of grammer? I can show you where you ridiculed me when I used "seen" instead of "saw". You created an analogy off of something I said and accused me of being a "little off". I do not want the credit for your "little off" analogy. I would never create an analogy to say "let murderers go until there are two murders with "facts" but don't share the facts with anyone". as you implied I did. It's not good to put words in other people's mouths.

Okay, BillyB, Out of courtesy I will answer your questions and then you are free to have the last word, because this is way off topic.

Read my response to KenC.  You claimed that I was wrong to call it an analogy, basically saying that you knew what an analogy was better than I did, implying that I had a lesser knowledge of grammar.  I accused you of being "a little off' on your example not because of the "forgive and forget" portion, which I have already told you I agree with, but with the implication that the wrongs of this man should be treated any different than the wrongs of a murderer.  Maybe you had the right idea, but it wasn't expressed well in your analogy and it came across as "a little off".

You seem to be, as others have noted, a rather extreme proponent of anyone accused, often making some rather unlikely assumptions in their defense but disputing any assumptions against them.  You have shown this propensity in other threads.  Have you perhaps in the past been in a situation where you have been unjustly accused?

[Admin]

Dan,
Don't get too happy about the acceptance of AD here.  I still think they are a pack of jackals.  Only because the guy is a scumbag do I think he deserves to be thrown to the pack.

As far as me (I will only speak for myself) coming to judgement, I have always based my opinion on the premise that the facts presented were truths.
KenC

Hi Ken,

I expect that people will continue to approach AD with some trepidation - and I think that is a good thing. They (AD) have, indeed, been guilty of the same sort of behavior which I have cautioned here - they have rushed to judge - and in some cases, have badly (IMO) over-reacted. Part of that is, again IMO, part and parcel to their being in the blacklisting business. I just don't see how an internet site can operate a blacklist site without injuring innocents - and when (not if) they do  - their credibility is forever suspect.

My next comment - while a small point - is, I believe, at the heart of my concerns. You said; "the facts presented were truths" - and I submit we had neither. We did not have "facts" and we do not know the "truth." I do not mean to question Gator's account of events in the slightest. Only that, we are not able to 'vett' the "truth" or the "facts" given that we are only addressing one side of the story, and we are NOT able to perform an entirely unbiased accounting. For that reason - I would support a public statement of the events to warn others from making similar mistakes - WITHOUT - public castigation of the principals. Just my take on things - and obviously, plenty of the members feel otherwise. That is OK - just stings my personal sense of 'justice' a bit.

FWIW

- Dan

[BillyB]

Billy,
You are hopeless!!!!!!!  In the court of RWD the guy is guilty of being a scumbag!!!  Deal with it!!!
KenC

 I already told everyone here my feelings are that the guy's a scumbag and he should be placed on antidate minus name and photo. Should my feelings be used to convict others? In the old days, people have had feelings that other people are witches and drowned them because "it just feels right". I don't play that.

What disappoints me most is watching this court of RWD do exactly what other forum courts have done and are doing. Ken, you were one of those guys found guilty. Did it feel right to you when the majority handed down judgement on you? Have you accepted their ruling as truth?

[Admin]

You seem to be, as others have noted, a rather extreme proponent of anyone accused, often making some rather unlikely assumptions in their defense but disputing any assumptions against them.  You have shown this propensity in other threads.  Have you perhaps in the past been in a situation where you have been unjustly accused?

Scott,

Just today, I received a 540-page transcript of the first 5 days of a 9-day trial conducted just over two years ago. In that trial, my ex-wife alleged criminal contempt on multiple counts.

Part of the problem was (and still is), that my ex-wife suffers from undiagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder. She is a first-class nutbag. Sadly, there are plenty of attorneys who will play right into someone like her, with promises of courtroom success which are rarely achieved. It is difficult to say who was more at fault - my ex-wife for being a vindictive, hate-filled bitch (and BTW - she had copied similar comments of mine from RWD for presentation to the court LAST time, but was unable to get them introduced - though she, and her attorney, tried) - or her corrupt reptilian attorney who fed into her delusions and encouraged her to move ahead even when they had no reasonable chance of success.

In this instance, criminal contempt is alleged when a party claims a breach of a court order and seeks incarceration as a remedy. Since liberty is at stake, there is a much higher standard which the court must apply to find criminal contempt had occurred.

Long story short - the judge found her testimony "misleading and deceptive" and "NOT worthy of belief" (quotes from the transcript), among some other not-very-favorable findings. We successfully defended on the criminal contempt citations - and in the process, she managed to shoot herself in the foot and lose an ex parte judgment which had been awarded her earlier (and should never have been awarded in the first place - but that is another story).

Anyone who has ever faced wrongful allegations, and I've managed to face a number of them - including some from former RWD members - will quickly become sensitive to the need for some form of equitable and objective consideration whenever allegations are leveled. The internet is certainly not presently a venue in which one can find anything close to objectivity, nor where there can be sufficient certainty of claims or evidence (or even identity) to enable proper 'vetting' of an argument in either direction. Mostly, you simply end up with a contest of who can 'scream the loudest,' only in written form - assuming all principals play a part. We have ample evidence of some of those internet 'shouting matches' right here on display at RWD.

BillyB may, or may not, have been wrongly-accused in the past - but there is an increasing phenomenon in the US of men being wrongly-accused all the time in family court. We hear about some of it here with the false DV claims (one of the most insidious, BTW), but those claims, and many others, are happening day in and day out. I predict it is likely to touch most of us eventually. If not personally - then through our children.

Well, you now understand why I am sensitive to judging others - or at least a part of why it is so. Not so sure about Billy's rationale - but I do believe that many thinking people who consider the possible consequences and weigh the 'justice' of a situation will tend toward a moderate position. Maybe I am wrong. The results here would tend to suggest that I am wrong.

FWIW

- Dan

[BillyB]

You seem to be, as others have noted, a rather extreme proponent of anyone accused, often making some rather unlikely assumptions in their defense but disputing any assumptions against them.  You have shown this propensity in other threads.  

When someone is being accused of doing wrong, the burden of proof should fall with the accuser, not the accused. If I posted tough questions to those who come here and accuse, they better have good answers  with backup. I won't take their word for it because I don't believe everything I hear.

  Have you perhaps in the past been in a situation where you have been unjustly accused?

I've probably been unjustly accused less than most people and nothing major. Never came close to going to jail or being accused of something that would have me do jail time. I don't do DV and don't do drugs, I like the way I am just fine. Not much bad about me that others can complain about. If you feel I'm bitter about anything based on the way I post, then it's most likely because the disappointment I have of other posters to quickly make assumptions of what is and what is not actually true and their willingness to hang others based on one side of the story. I do feel this attitude by much of the population has worked its way to the American justice system favoring women.