Originally Posted by tlmoon

I’m trying to decide what to think of this thread…Manny Frade is by all accounts a scammer and person to be avoided. So I would wonder about anyone who does business deals with him and defends him by blocking posts regarding his past deeds.
On the other hand though, how far do we take guilt by association? If Jim got some animals that he was due from a past deal, I don’t see how that makes him a close associate or supporter of Manny. There is another thread where Manny owes someone on a breeding loan. If he now makes good on that and delivers on what he owes to that person, does that person then become questionable because they finally collected on that debt? I think not.
I think the real issue here is this: by tagging Manny and then defending him by removing David’s posts, it looks like Jim was supporting Manny. That may not have been his goal – maybe he just didn’t want the FB group descending into a dramatic argument about Manny. Maybe he was annoyed by David calling him out on it, and instead of saying “yeah, David, I know he’s a bad guy but he owed me some snakes and I didn’t want a whole FB war so I deleted your posts ” he basically said that Manny’s issues are his own and who he associates with is his own business. Maybe he is owed further animals and is trying to keep Manny cooperative and holding up his end of the deal? Or he may have just been somewhat offended – you did come on pretty strong there, David. Maybe by arguing back with you, he was more defending himself than Manny? None of us are at our best when we feel attacked.
I guess I’m on the fence. It’s good information to know in order to avoid associating with associates of scammers, but I don’t see enough evidence to say Jim is a buddy of Manny’s.