Pt 2- What would you pay?

[Turboguy]

  People paint the term " matchmaker" with a broad brush. To me a matchmaker is a person that finds you a wife without you ever laying eyes on the woman before hand.

If someone quoted that description and asked me for the proper word, I would never pick "matchmaker"    Marriage Broker would be the one I would consider to fit that description.  There seems to be a lot of controversly over the word "matchmaker"   My thoughts on the description of it is "someone who makes matches.   That could well be looking at the things a man wants to find and trying to match him up with suitable candidates.  That probably is what Kevin does and to me the word is appropriate.

Personally I am sorry to see Kevin go.  I never met him or used his services although when I did Jack's tour a few years ago I almost got to.   Kevin always impressed me as a good guy who cares about people and tries to run the kind of service we like to find.   I have had a few times when guys were heading that way that I had no first hand experience with him but that he might be a good option.

I didn't read anything on the Poppy report beyond what Dan posted but based on that it turned my stomach that they would draw the conclusions that they did simply because there there are photos of children on his site.   The whole thing is in their imagination.  Personally I think Kevin should sue them. 

[ECOCKS]

TG, et al:

I also read that excerpt with a bit of sick feeling in my stomach. It strikes me as slanderous in its innuendo and flimsy extrapolation. What particularly set off my bias alarm was the reference to MOBs. It also makes no mention of Kevin's posting of his own childrens' pictures on the site as well. This reminds me of the type of trash which appears regularly in the biased rags of the UK, particularly the Guardian, which loves to bring agenda-serving, tabloid-reporting into the psuedo-mainstream masquerading as factual investigative reporting.

I lend it no weight at all with regard to crediblity.

Still I understand Dan's pointing it out and suggesting Kevin rebut it and wish Kevin hasd taken time to answer the report.

In these crazy times anything could happen, but there is a reasonable man test which can still be applied. If Interpol busts Kevin for running a pedophile ring, we'll know some "facts" but in the meantime I take his site and presentation (like many people's portrayals of themselves and their situations on RWD) at face value until I have reason to question from the standpoint of credibility or possibility.

[kievstar]

I tend to not believe any new artilces or tv story coming from england.  That country loves gossip. Financial times is another paper which is full of bad information as well but not sure if it is from england.

So I like to look at facts so I reviewed Kevin's post history on RWD and he has had arguments with Sculpto, CC cowboy, and Dan in past year.  I see that Kevin defends his agency which is normal.  CC and Scultpo no offense you guys had arguments with several people on RWD recently.  CC tends to have issues will all agencies or interpreters.

I than reviewed Khersen girls website.  On Kevin's website he says he retired at 34 years ago and has a lot of money.  He even posted about having a lot of money on RWD.  He has stated 24 women from his agencies got married / engaged in 2008 and shows photos (strong evidence).  From the pictures looks like guys are dating in their league.  Kevin appears to be upfront with men and the successful men are dating in their league.  You will not find any gorgeous women in the photos which is fine.   

He has 651 women in his agency when I checked so that means very few of the women on his site will marry a foreigner.  Not Kevin's fault but tells me he either has loser men going to his agency, not much business from men visiting, many ugly women, or not serious women.  Or a combination.

He also does tours and I was looking at the photos and noticed that the good looking women were there in the early years of the tours but are gone now.  To me it seems he runs a legit agency. 

I did notice the owner of Kiev Connections was at the party in 2002 with Kevin's agency.  Was not aware they have connections.  See links. If I am wrong, the owner of Kiev Connections has a twin brother.

http://www.khersongirls.com/party/oct02/party8-30-02%20(60).jpg

http://www.khersongirls.com/party/oct02/party8-30-02%20(73).jpg

http://www.khersongirls.com/party/oct02/party8-30-02%20(72).jpg

So Kevin seems like a guy not into issues with children.  He does seem like someone who is having fun and using his money to feed his ego with the ladies.

[ECOCKS]

I don't know about feeding his ego with the ladies. He posts pictures of his wife and children and his mention of money seems to be in response to those who question his motives and make claims of exorbitant profiteering in the agency business. As for having selected orphanages as his charity, he's far from alone as there are a couple of hundred Lions Clubs, Rotary Chapters, University Student Clubs and the like which pick either Ukrainian flood victims or orphanages as their projects. The orphan children of Ukraine, many of them are simply abandoned by the way, are in pretty bad shape in terms of facilities, hope, finances and basic needs. Many suffer from long-term ailments which will result from chronic poor nutrition and early childhood neglect. More than a few were dumped due to birth defects or disfigurement (birthmarks, fingers, toes, etc.). The government does its usual job of taking care of them which means run-down buildings, bulk cereal foods for subsistence and poorly trained staff to watch over them.

To me it is little wonder that these conditions have led to being a major source for pedophilia and similar situations have resulted in the white slavery/human trafficking problems with young women as well. It's good to be vigilant but the mentality of some of these people with an agenda is truly a prime example of the dangers of zealotry and blinding bias.

I don't know who does the Poppy Report but this reading leaves the impression that they are among the worst type of "actvists" and "progressives" who propose change without consideration of collateral damage to either the institutions or people in the view of their tunnel vision.

If these people wish to look at a primary contributing factor that causes the problem they should be looking at the government system which considers them an inconvenience and a cost factor. This results in a "just get them taken care of however you can attitude" with little or no background checking or paperwork from the adopting "parent" and minimal coordination with the dozens of countries which have their citizens coming here for adoptions.

[OlgaH]

I didn't read anything on the Poppy report beyond what Dan posted but based on that it turned my stomach that they would draw the conclusions that they did simply because there there are photos of children on his site.   The whole thing is in their imagination.  Personally I think Kevin should sue them. 

Turboguy, I agree with you and I also think Kevin should sue them. That was a disgusting allegation.


Some phrases from that report just point out that the men who are looking through the photos of women on dating/ agency sites and especially women with their children are already in the list of potential perverts and pedophiles.   

[Boethius]

The Poppy Project is part of the British Crown.  Actions against the Crown are very difficult to bring.

I don't think pointing out the vulnerability is libelous, though I certainly am not suggesting that is Kevin's intent.

[ECOCKS]

The Poppy Project is an activist group which receives funding from several sources, one of which was the British Home Office. It is not itself a part of the British Government.

They have an agenda and, IMO, a bias, which can push them to present situations in the way which best justifies some possibility of justifying their continued existence.

I am sure they do some wonderful things to help others, but letting biased groups perform research and then taking the results without the context of their production by biased activists is the very thing that causes so much of the ridiculous politically correct BS we have to put up with these days.

[Kuna]

Part of the British Crown???  No idea where you got that idea???

We are a feminist organisation which is committed to:
    * challenging inequalities
    * embracing diversity
    * enabling people to fulfil their potential
    * treating people with dignity and respect
    * promoting innovation.

You can more of this mob and their agenda here:   http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/About_Us.php

I hope Kevin can and does take action against the vulgar insinuations within the Poppy Project report.

[jdk1963]

Kevin.. on different topic..

Does you agency engage in the use of "bait mails".. a simple yes or no will do.

I'll go one further - Not only do you get "bait mails" but it is likely that if you wrote a woman someone working at the agency wrote back.  Furthermore it is extremely unlikely that the woman you wrote even read your letter.  And the nonsense about the woman having to come to the office, they'll "call" her and "read" your letter and get her response.  And to top things off if you ask a question about a woman she is undeniably great and has no flaws or quirks whatsoever.  That right there is extremely dishonest.  Someone can tell you these things but sometimes you have to find them out for yourself and the agency has had and taken every opportunity with the rope.   

As for the topic "What would you pay"  That is difficult to answer.  I do believe that the initial responses were off base.  I did not get the impression that I was asked how much I would pay for someone to make a decision on who I should marry.  My impression was that I was asked how much I would pay to have someone weed out the obvious incompatible women.  I would not call it matchmaking.  I do not think it would be unreasonable for any agency to sit down with a list you provide them and ask a series of questions you provide and give you their impressions.  This should also mean that you spend a bit of time with the person doing the interviews so that he/she/it can get a feel for you.  Also, they should never show the women your profile until after the interview and he/she/it should have the flexibility to add to your list women who he/she/it would be worth a look based on questions you want the women to answer.  Once that process is complete he/she/it should arrange a video & audio chat with each woman.  Probably more than $500 but
 

[joe rockhead]

To answer your original question of what would I pay... I will eventually pay for a language school so I can actually immerse myself in the culture and go from there.

[ecr844]

Well, Kevin has decided to Opt-out of RWD and will not be replying - but so that no-one is under the mistaken belief I was 'blowing smoke' with my comments about reading an article accusing Kevin of exposing children to abuse, I am attaching the PDF of an article prepared by 'The POPPY Project' and published in March 2009. They are a UK-based organization funded by the British government. Here is an excerpt taken from the Home Page of their website:

"The POPPY Project was set up in 2003. It is funded by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (reporting to the Ministry of Justice) to provide accommodation and support to women who have been trafficked into prostitution."

The particular section I was referencing in my question to Kevin is found on page 21 of the report, and states the following:

So you see, I did, in fact, read a recent article (publication, actually) that made some very nasty inferences toward Kevin and his agency. I would have imagined that Kevin knew about such an article, but based on his response here, I now suppose he did not.

This publication of The POPPY Project is one of a spate of recent articles/petitions that seek to further restrict men in this pursuit. Witness this initiative (http://humantrafficking.change.org/actions/view/close_the_international_marriage_broker_regulation_act_matchcom_human_trafficking_loophole) to direct a petition to Tahirih Justice Center imploring them to seek expansion of IMBRA.

As an aside, I held a lengthy meeting with Tahirih in one of their Virginia associates law offices in April. I will have more to report on that meeting, and subsequent actions/directions soon.

Ed (ECOCKS) - I apologize for interrupting your topic here. It seems Kevin became offended over an exchange he and I were having in PM, and it spilled over into your topic.

- Dan

I've never been one to be PC, or mute my opinions to codify someone's self esteem. That being said I am of the following opinion on the above article and quote. After the quote you can read my opinion.

1.) I find it disturbing that only part of that passage was quote and feel that the full text should have been quoted above. The full quote from that publication is as follows:

 

7.2ii Children

In both sites, some women can be seen posing with their children – often with the children playing on a
beach or, if they are quite young, perhaps taking a bath; seemingly innocent poses that may however
appeal to men intending to sexually exploit vulnerable women and children.

Frantana.ru also links to a parallel project, framed as a children’s charity, which is described by the
owner as ‘child-invalids, abandoned by parents,’ although she notes that it has now been closed as,
after posting photos of the children, only three men from America came to ‘help.’

Some sites, while not explicitly linking the images of the women and children, also feature links to other
children’s “charities” or projects. When a man has been browsing images of women he can “buy,” and
is then met with images of similarly vulnerable children, it is reasonable to believe that a feeling of what
he sees, he can purchase, may prevail.

Kherson Girls, a site specialising in women from Ukraine, features the “Kherson Girls Children fund60”.
According to the website, “One can not live in the country without feeling sad for the children”. Photos
are available of the children, who seem to range in age from five to perhaps 13 or a bit older, although
ages are not indicated. One photo shows a young girl who appears to be about six or seven years old
on the shoulders of a ‘volunteer’ man from the west, with a caption that reads “These children are very
precious61”. There is also a link to the fund’s children’s centre, for those aged nought-four years. Several
photos are available of these children as well; the vast majority appear to be under two years of age. The
project for street children includes a spreadsheet of boys and girls, their photos, ages, names, family
history and any medical needs. Most children’s family members are listed as ‘dead’, ‘alcoholic’, ‘abusive’
or ‘unknown.’

These children are not portrayed as being “for sale,” so to speak, but their vulnerability is highlighted and
their proximity to the mail-order bride profiles is concerning.

RussianBrides.org.uk, which describes itself as “A marriage agency [where] only Russian women and
men with serious intentions are welcomed,” alleges to offer nearly 50,000 “girls, women and ladies”
from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. As of the latest
search run on 25 September 2008, the site featured profiles of four women under 17, all of whom had
photos posted. One profile contained pornographic photos containing partial nudity and extremely sexualised
poses, including one of a mostly naked young girl covered in a substance which appears to be
food62, and a photo of a girl in a highly sexualised pose holding a gun63. More than 350 profiles are available
for girls aged 17. Screen names include ‘naked’, ‘nasty_3’, ‘above price girl’ and several that begin
with ‘baby.’ Many profiles feature girls in towels, posing on the hoods of cars and consuming alcohol. A
dominant theme seems to be young women dressed as much younger children, often holding stuffed
toys (one photo is captioned ‘baby day’), and women dressed as animals in submissive poses. Approximately
10% of these profiles contain photos of children in sexually explicit poses or partial nudity64.

While researching this report the profiles containing photos of children being sexually abused were
reported to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which responded saying: “We have assessed the
material specified in your report, a sample of the profiles were (sic) examined and no images of child
sexual abuse were found. Therefore we are unable to take any further action65”. Further emails explaining
the nature of the content were not responded to. The IWF also suggested contacting the Londonbased
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP). The same material was forwarded to
CEOP, which also stated that it found no evidence of abuse. This raises concerns both about the ability
of ‘watch dog’ organisations to effectively monitor these sites, and the increased risk that children face
when these authorities are reluctant to take action.
56 Lee, Donna R. (1998). Mail Fantasy: Global Sexual Exploitation in the Mail-Order Bride Industry and Proposed Legal Solutions,
Asian Law Journal (Berkeley): 139 and 140
57 Ibid
58 ibid
59 See Zelizer, Viviana A. (4 February 2006). Money, Power, and Sex. Keynote Address, Sex for Sale: a symposium introducing
cutting-edge research on commodified sex. Yale: Yale UP. See also Lindee, supra note 2, at 562 “By knowingly placing women in
potentially dangerous situations, therefore, IMBs appear to have exacerbated the informational imbalance that already contributes
to the probability of domestic violence occurring in these relationships.”
60 http://www.khersongirls.com/children/index.htm
61 http://www.khersongirls.com/children/summer2004.htm
62 http://russianbrides.org.uk/fotoalbums_48840_2.html?resize=1&noheader=1&sid=33f7296d7751b423412d3db77cef39b2
63 http://russianbrides.org.uk/fotoalbums_62454_2.html?resize=1&noheader=1&sid=33f7296d7751b423412d3db77cef39b2
64 Of 150 profiles surveyed, 16 contained pornographic material
65 Email received by the author on 21 July 2008, from the Internet Watch Foundation RE: Your report to the IWF: 558012

"Kevin, "

  I hope you retain the best attorney you can find on the planet and sue the offending parties. I hope you win a judgment so devastating that their children's, children will remain born into abject poverty. I have no love and never propose any quarter, as the only suitable punishment is often a bullet in the brain for those who harm children. Equally reprehensable is those that would make unfounded false accusations of such against someone who does do nor has done anything so heinous as what they accuse. It's Un- :censored:ing-believable (UFB) the lengths some scumbags will go through to make themselves feel better or use others to accomplish what they cannot do on their own merits.

2.) You'll all notice from the above that

While researching this report the profiles containing photos of children being sexually abused were reported to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which responded saying: “We have assessed the material specified in your report, a sample of the profiles were (sic) examined and no images of child sexual abuse were found. Therefore we are unable to take any further action65”..  Further emails explaining the nature of the content were not responded to. The IWF also suggested contacting the London based Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP). The same material was forwarded to CEOP, which also stated that it found no evidence of abuse. This raises concerns both about the ability of ‘watch dog’ organisations to effectively monitor these sites, and the increased risk that children face when these authorities are reluctant to take action.

So, in their own words even after reporting this to other watchdog agencies specializing in ridding the internet and working with LEO authorities to rid the internet and globe of this type of scumbag. No evidence of wrongdoing was found. Not one bit. The perception and allegation was all on the behalf of the publications author. Furthermore, another thing I find particularly disturbing is that IIRC, this very forum during various times over the holiday seasons in years past often promoted and worked with "Kevin and Kherson Girls" to help these needy, poor children.

At what point did it become acceptable to vilify and turn our back on this fine gentleman who has done a lot more than your average individual to help those in need? He gave himself, his time and his resources to directly help those children and asked nothing in return for it. It's sad that the subtext, and subterfuge without concrete proof of these especially heinous allegations have been allowed to be posted and appear here with that in mind. It's unacceptable in my opinion and I believe that anyone involved should both suffer any applicable criminal and civil recourse and penalties. These people should also have the common decency to 'man up' and apologize for the wrong they have done to damage the reputation, and business of this man.

3.) So that's just my $.02, more to follow....

message ends
ECR844



 

[Admin]

I've never been one to be PC, or mute my opinions to codify someone's self esteem. That being said I am of the following opinion on the above article and quote. After the quote you can read my opinion.

1.) I find it disturbing that only part of that passage was quote and feel that the full text should have been quoted above. The full quote from that publication is as follows:

"Kevin, "

  I hope you retain the best attorney you can find on the planet and sue the offending parties. I hope you win a judgment so devastating that their children's, children will remain born into abject poverty. I have no love and never propose any quarter, as the only suitable punishment is often a bullet in the brain for those who harm children. Equally reprehensable is those that would make unfounded false accusations of such against someone who does do nor has done anything so heinous as what they accuse. It's Un- :censored:ing-believable (UFB) the lengths some scumbags will go through to make themselves feel better or use others to accomplish what they cannot do on their own merits.

2.) You'll all notice from the above that
So, in their own words even after reporting this to other watchdog agencies specializing in ridding the internet and working with LEO authorities to rid the internet and globe of this type of scumbag. No evidence of wrongdoing was found. Not one bit. The perception and allegation was all on the behalf of the publications author. Furthermore, another thing I find particularly disturbing is that IIRC, this very forum during various times over the holiday seasons in years past often promoted and worked with "Kevin and Kherson Girls" to help these needy, poor children.

At what point did it become acceptable to vilify and turn our back on this fine gentleman who has done a lot more than your average individual to help those in need? He gave himself, his time and his resources to directly help those children and asked nothing in return for it. It's sad that the subtext, and subterfuge without concrete proof of these especially heinous allegations have been allowed to be posted and appear here with that in mind. It's unacceptable in my opinion and I believe that anyone involved should both suffer any applicable criminal and civil recourse and penalties. These people should also have the common decency to 'man up' and apologize for the wrong they have done to damage the reputation, and business of this man.

3.) So that's just my $.02, more to follow....

message ends
ECR844

>>I find it disturbing that only part of that passage was quote and feel that the full text should have been quoted above.<<

Actually, the entire report was made available and was (and is) attached as a PDF to that post. The excerpt was provided in direct response to a question posed by Kevin.

>>this very forum during various times over the holiday seasons in years past often promoted and worked with "Kevin and Kherson Girls" to help these needy, poor children.<<

Yes, and others. We would be happy to work with them again in the future.

>>It's sad that the subtext, and subterfuge without concrete proof of these especially heinous allegations have been allowed to be posted and appear here with that in mind.<<

ECR, the materials you are expressing rage about were published earlier this year by an organization having what appears to be some sort of association with the British government. I first raised it to Kevin's attention in a post in an earlier thread here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=4204.msg187656#msg187656. It is worth noting that I pointed out my being "aggravated" at seeing that part of the report.

In the same topic referenced above, I wrote; "I seriously doubt he [Kevin] would knowingly place anyone in jeopardy."

I was curious as to Kevin's response to the report from The POPPY Project, so I asked him about it in this post -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=9710.msg188129#msg188129.

He then asked for the reference - and I provided it.

Since the report itself is 22 pages long, I thought it might help to provide only the relevant excerpt - while at the same time, providing the entire report for anyone who cared to read through it - as you have. In my characterization of the excerpt, I noted that they had made some "very nasty inferences" about Kevin, but I certainly did not endorse or support those inferences - quite the opposite - as had been stated, more than once, in previous posts.

No-one here at RWD is seeking to "vilify" Kevin.

- Dan

[ecr844]

>>I find it disturbing that only part of that passage was quote and feel that the full text should have been quoted above.<<

Actually, the entire report was made available and was (and is) attached as a PDF to that post. The excerpt was provided in direct response to a question posed by Kevin.

    That's correct you did provide the ability for someone to download the report here. The fact of the matter is the average poster, lurker, reader is more often than not far to lazy to go through and re-read the full text when you so kindly posted a partial quote of it.  the expectation especially of such an astute individual such as yourself is that you would provide all of the relevant info. and a full quote in such a case. That unfortunately didn't happen in this instance. There will be more to follow below as this is a bit of a 'split question', and will receive a split response.

>>this very forum during various times over the holiday seasons in years past often promoted and worked with "Kevin and Kherson Girls" to help these needy, poor children.<<

Yes, and others. We would be happy to work with them again in the future.

  That certainly wasn't the impression I got from reading the original posts from the compilation of respondents. Although the subtle implication has become more obscure with the remaining edited versions. The opposite impression had been implied based on how it previously was written. There was the negative inference, which was although slight absolutely present as I read it. The implication of impropriety was there as a result. For some that is more than enough to cause and fuel further disinformation, libel, defamation, and slander akin to that which was written by the author of the quoted report above. I would venture to presume that if someone made similar allegations like that of you that you would feel the same and react similarly to how 'Kevin,' has. Out of curiosity how exactly would you respond to the same situation?

>>It's sad that the subtext, and subterfuge without concrete proof of these especially heinous allegations have been allowed to be posted and appear here with that in mind.<<

ECR, the materials you are expressing rage about were published earlier this year by an organization having what appears to be some sort of association with the British government.

  My posted opinion however 'strong' may have read wasn't 'enraged.' In fact, I don't think that was a fair characterization, and frankly you wouldn't be in a position to make such a judgment. I'm not here to get into a semantics debate or denigrate this into personal attacks as this post isn't about your ability to assess 'state of mind', thoughts or my emotions on the subject, nor your qualifications and or lack there of to do so.

   I will however, also say that for you to make that characterization is a bit presumptuous. I will carry that even further to relate that  having witnessed first hand the consequences and aftermath of abuse in all sorts of situations and strata of society that I have strong feelings on the matter. I suspect some others with similar occupational exposure to the evils of humanity will readily agree with me. As a matter of fact I believe I even posted an instance here of a personal experience I had as a witness to physical abuse that resulted in a childs loss of life. I don't know a single other professional who has had similar experiences who doesn't feel the same. Hence my personal strong opinions and state similar feelings on matters such as this. The same I can also say go for those wrongly accused without evidence of such things. Those folks are also victims as well and often suffer as a result if those implications, and accusations long afterward. That isn't right either and I suspect anyone similarly implicated or accused would probably react the same as I have posted about and as "Kevin," has. How exactly would you respond in the same situation?

    The fact is you stated it was

aggravating

and since it is unfounded and unproven according to the sites TOS the comments and posts should have disappeared immediately as I previously wrote and has occurred so often here. The fact that the author even admitted in her own publication these allegations were investigated by other 'groups' and 'experts' and no hint of impropriety was found. Further research also fails to glean even the remotest hint of impropriety. As a matter of fact. Just the opposite. All evidence points to the fact that in regards to his charity and work with disadvantaged children that "Kevin," is someone we all should aspire and endeavor to follow his example in this regard. These things lead a reasonable person to conclude that the words and actions on this matter aren't equivalent here. Furthermore, after such a close association with this forum and with his charity I would have expected and hoped you would have taken the opposite 'tack' and set of actions. especially after such promotion and involvement from you and this venue. My view and opinion on this may not be popular but as anyone can plainly see it isn't unreasonable in it's logical conclusions.  

No-one here at RWD is seeking to "vilify" Kevin.

    As I wrote above the fact that others posts which alleged the same, the partial quote and other things left here in conjunction with the appearance of the selective application of moderation and the sites TOS application. These things can easily lead a third party to question both intent and the reasons such clear appearance of apparent 'defamation, and slander per se,' would be allowed to remain?  

   Of course someone will invariably ask for 'proof' of a posts alteration and my response is that i have no desire to put myself in jeopardy or at risk of a frivolous DCMA or copyright 'beef.' The prima fascia evidence to anyone who has been reading the thread is clear that there have been in fact changes to posts have been made. that's my passive observation. I also doubt the retort of requests for raw server and database logs, google cache evidence and other technically boring things would invariable merely cause a denigrate into personal attacks which serve nothing to the ultimate purpose and principle this response is meant to highlight and make a point about.

   This will work to merely cloud and obfuscate that ultimate issue and point. Besides I have no desire to end up 'opted out, banned, moderated, or any other censured status' that may occur in this realm of a 'benevolent' dictatorship and privately run entity that is every internet forum.

   The short take home point to all this is as follows:

1.) A wrong has been done to "Kevin," in that article and passively here.
2.) The lack of appropriate action and even application of the TOS should be rectified
3.) Unless someone can provide evidence which is good enough to stand up in court and or initiate a LEO investigation into the matter of criminal charges an apology, retraction and appropriate measures taken and should be issued and carried out.
4.) This isn't about the semantics of wording of my reply or uses but of the context and content of the greater issue
5.) This is my opinion based on what I have read, observed and found in my research and observation of this issue, thread, etc..

More to follow as necessary, best wishes,
ECR844

[Admin]

   That's correct you did provide the ability for someone to download the report here. The fact of the matter is the average poster, lurker, reader is more often than not far to lazy to go through and re-read the full text when you so kindly posted a partial quote of it.  the expectation especially of such an astute individual such as yourself is that you would provide all of the relevant info. and a full quote in such a case. That unfortunately didn't happen in this instance. There will be more to follow below as this is a bit of a 'split question', and will receive a split response.

  That certainly wasn't the impression I got from reading the original posts from the compilation of respondents. Although the subtle implication has become more obscure with the remaining edited versions. The opposite impression had been implied based on how it previously was written. There was the negative inference, which was although slight absolutely present as I read it. The implication of impropriety was there as a result. For some that is more than enough to cause and fuel further disinformation, libel, defamation, and slander akin to that which was written by the author of the quoted report above. I would venture to presume that if someone made similar allegations like that of you that you would feel the same and react similarly to how 'Kevin,' has. Out of curiosity how exactly would you respond to the same situation?

  My posted opinion however 'strong' may have read wasn't 'enraged.' In fact, I don't think that was a fair characterization, and frankly you wouldn't be in a position to make such a judgment. I'm not here to get into a semantics debate or denigrate this into personal attacks as this post isn't about your ability to assess 'state of mind', thoughts or my emotions on the subject, nor your qualifications and or lack there of to do so.

   I will however, also say that for you to make that characterization is a bit presumptuous. I will carry that even further to relate that  having witnessed first hand the consequences and aftermath of abuse in all sorts of situations and strata of society that I have strong feelings on the matter. I suspect some others with similar occupational exposure to the evils of humanity will readily agree with me. As a matter of fact I believe I even posted an instance here of a personal experience I had as a witness to physical abuse that resulted in a childs loss of life. I don't know a single other professional who has had similar experiences who doesn't feel the same. Hence my personal strong opinions and state similar feelings on matters such as this. The same I can also say go for those wrongly accused without evidence of such things. Those folks are also victims as well and often suffer as a result if those implications, and accusations long afterward. That isn't right either and I suspect anyone similarly implicated or accused would probably react the same as I have posted about and as "Kevin," has. How exactly would you respond in the same situation?

    The fact is you stated it was  and since it is unfounded and unproven according to the sites TOS the comments and posts should have disappeared immediately as I previously wrote and has occurred so often here. The fact that the author even admitted in her own publication these allegations were investigated by other 'groups' and 'experts' and no hint of impropriety was found. Further research also fails to glean even the remotest hint of impropriety. As a matter of fact. Just the opposite. All evidence points to the fact that in regards to his charity and work with disadvantaged children that "Kevin," is someone we all should aspire and endeavor to follow his example in this regard. These things lead a reasonable person to conclude that the words and actions on this matter aren't equivalent here. Furthermore, after such a close association with this forum and with his charity I would have expected and hoped you would have taken the opposite 'tack' and set of actions. especially after such promotion and involvement from you and this venue. My view and opinion on this may not be popular but as anyone can plainly see it isn't unreasonable in it's logical conclusions.  

    As I wrote above the fact that others posts which alleged the same, the partial quote and other things left here in conjunction with the appearance of the selective application of moderation and the sites TOS application. These things can easily lead a third party to question both intent and the reasons such clear appearance of apparent 'defamation, and slander per se,' would be allowed to remain?  

   Of course someone will invariably ask for 'proof' of a posts alteration and my response is that i have no desire to put myself in jeopardy or at risk of a frivolous DCMA or copyright 'beef.' The prima fascia evidence to anyone who has been reading the thread is clear that there have been in fact changes to posts have been made. that's my passive observation. I also doubt the retort of requests for raw server and database logs, google cache evidence and other technically boring things would invariable merely cause a denigrate into personal attacks which serve nothing to the ultimate purpose and principle this response is meant to highlight and make a point about.

   This will work to merely cloud and obfuscate that ultimate issue and point. Besides I have no desire to end up 'opted out, banned, moderated, or any other censured status' that may occur in this realm of a 'benevolent' dictatorship and privately run entity that is every internet forum.

   The short take home point to all this is as follows:

1.) A wrong has been done to "Kevin," in that article and passively here.
2.) The lack of appropriate action and even application of the TOS should be rectified
3.) Unless someone can provide evidence which is good enough to stand up in court and or initiate a LEO investigation into the matter of criminal charges an apology, retraction and appropriate measures taken and should be issued and carried out.
4.) This isn't about the semantics of wording of my reply or uses but of the context and content of the greater issue
5.) This is my opinion based on what I have read, observed and found in my research and observation of this issue, thread, etc..

More to follow as necessary, best wishes,
ECR844

ECR,

>>the expectation especially of such an astute individual such as yourself is that you would provide all of the relevant info. and a full quote in such a case.<<

That may be YOUR expectation, but what and how I post is affected by a number of things - not the least of which is my time to spend in making that post. This post is a good example. I could spend a lot of time composing a reply, but I won't. I'll pick a few points and reply to those. Whether it meets your "expectation" is not something I have control over.

>>the subtle implication has become more obscure with the remaining edited versions.<<

You make several references to "edited versions" and "post alteration" and "in fact changes to posts have been made".

The simple fact is - you are wrong. Nothing has been changed or deleted.

>>My posted opinion however 'strong' may have read wasn't 'enraged.'<<

OK - I accept that. My bad.

>>My view and opinion on this may not be popular but as anyone can plainly see it isn't unreasonable in it's logical conclusions.<<

True enough. Your stated assumptions, incorrect as they are, may lead someone to the incorrect conclusion you have drawn.

>>How exactly would you respond in the same situation?<<

I am accused of things every single day that are false. My response is situational.

>>and since it is unfounded and unproven according to the sites TOS the comments and posts should have disappeared immediately as I previously wrote<<

Once again - the excerpt and report was posted as a response to a question by Kevin. There is nothing in the TOS to prohibit this.

>>in regards to his charity and work with disadvantaged children that "Kevin," is someone we all should aspire and endeavor to follow his example in this regard.<<

No disagreement here.

>>the appearance of the selective application of moderation and the sites TOS application.<<

There has been no "selective application of moderation and the sites TOS application."

>>The prima fascia evidence to anyone who has been reading the thread is clear that there have been in fact changes to posts have been made. that's my passive observation.<<

Your "prima fascia evidence" and "passive observation" are both, simply, false.

To prevent this from taking on any more of a 'life' - I am going to lock this topic.

If you have anything further, feel free to send me a PM.

- Dan