Wise's rights?

Originally Posted by TattooLost

Any emails yet? Guess it takes Christina a few days to create the evidence?

I don't see why anyone would want to protect Christina and Jeff. Sorry, but that's exactly what it seems like certain people are doing, but "not disclosing" anything for whatever reason. Unless there's something said or shown that might make you believe she had a good reason for stealing all that money, why help her? Is it just to be in the limelight? To have people wagging their tails at your feet, waiting for you to throw out a little piece of information?

I've avoided that BOI thread pretty much, and Fauna in general. I already hated taking charity, though we needed it and it helped greatly. Then all this crap happened, and it's turned into a three-ring circus.

I've got some dear friends thanks to this site. Luckily I can still keep in touch with them without all the drama.

On a final note, thank you to EVERYONE that donated, to us AND to Maggie. Even if it all didn't get where it was supposed to go, the thought alone means a lot. Thanks, from the bottom of mine and Sandra's heart.

Cya.

Rick, it was not charity. It was about two families in a small tight-knit community we all care about helping them in a time of need. You and Maggie were an integral part in me realizing that I actually had a heart and cared about someones needs. My wife has been very vocal about you getting whats due to you as it seems that people forget about that part of it.

I wish you the nothing but the best and hope that we both run into each other wherever that may be.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

How did you get the password to the chat room?

This one I can answer from my site..... staff dont need passwords. We have all access.

Originally Posted by TattooLost

Any emails yet? Guess it takes Christina a few days to create the evidence?

I don't see why anyone would want to protect Christina and Jeff. Sorry, but that's exactly what it seems like certain people are doing, but "not disclosing" anything for whatever reason. Unless there's something said or shown that might make you believe she had a good reason for stealing all that money, why help her? Is it just to be in the limelight? To have people wagging their tails at your feet, waiting for you to throw out a little piece of information?

I've avoided that BOI thread pretty much, and Fauna in general. I already hated taking charity, though we needed it and it helped greatly. Then all this crap happened, and it's turned into a three-ring circus.

I've got some dear friends thanks to this site. Luckily I can still keep in touch with them without all the drama.

On a final note, thank you to EVERYONE that donated, to us AND to Maggie. Even if it all didn't get where it was supposed to go, the thought alone means a lot. Thanks, from the bottom of mine and Sandra's heart.

Cya.

I wouldnt believe anything she posted without a team of folks going over it.

To the two people that is supposed to be getting the evidence.

Do you realize it took about 6 or 8 different members to fully pick appart their last bit of evidence... and everyone of us had different things we caught on... and thus made it easier for the next person.

Take for instace I found out what program they used to doctor the images.... but once I put that info out... then (I think it was) LauraB was able to locate the font as a download since it didnt come with the program.

So how do ya'll know who will be the best people to go over the "evidence"...and I use that term very loosly.

Originally Posted by DaveyFig

I was quoted on the BOI thread, and since I can't respond there, and it pertains to this, I will respond here.





I posted the above because it was stated that there was no way to ban Christina from the chat if she had access to any other part of the site. I think people think that I am whining about being banned. I'm not. If there was reason for the ban, so be it. I have been kicked out of stuff before. Live and learn. I keep bringing up the banning because it is repeated that Christina could not have been banned when people ask why she was protected in the chat room.

You do not understand the mechanics of how the chat system works. A member cannot be blocked from entering the chat if they have access to any forum on this site. Yes, they can be banned from the chat, but only from within the chat and while they are currently taking part in it. The ban is not permanent even if the above mentioned conditions apply. They will be able to access the chat later. That's two entirely different mechanisms at work that you are confusing yourself, and apparently working yourself into a lather over.

Furthermore, as Harald stated, if a member creates their own private chat, then they have an implicit right to do as they please within their own private room there (barring illegal activities, of course). That includes removing members who may guess at the password. As I understand it, Deb was the one who created that private chat room, so the only one calling the shots there was Deb herself.

Originally Posted by JudyC

I honestly don't see what the hang-up is about sharing what was said in chat. The reasons given for not sharing aren't making much sense (and are somewhat contradictory).

1. "Nothing new was said" ......ok...that wouldn't be a big surprise, really. So why not prove it by letting everyone else see that nothing new was said?

2. "She accused others of bad things and it would be unfair to drag their names into it" ........ I agree it would be unfair to just toss their names out without the full context of what was said. BUT...if she's going to try and implicate others in her twisted schemes in order to deflect heat from herself, I think that is something everyone should know and see in writing and the people she has accused (if there really are any such) should be allowed to have their say.

3. "We're waiting for certain 'evidence' to be e-mailed to us and then it will be reviewed by a select few" ........... since when is BOI-related evidence only meant to be reviewed by a "select few"? Since when does a "select few" get to decide what is "worthy" to be shared on the BOI?

What's done is done....and hollering at Deb or Brian for deigning to consent to and facilitate a private chat with Christina is pointless. But I'm telling the both of you....whatever your motives were going in, all you're accomplishing at this point is shooting yourselves in the foot and making the entire mess even more muddier than it was a couple days ago.

If I am understanding the gist of what supposedly went down in the chat room, Christina is trying to throw some other folks under the bus? Ask yourself this question - if you were going down and someone else truly was in on it, wouldn't you burn them immediately rather than waiting a few weeks and then conveniently remembering they were involved? Perhaps what is more likely to be happening in their world is that they're starting to feel the burn, and as they've done in the past, are fabricating more story to try and take the heat off of them, where it squarely belongs. My guess is that the people mentioned were ones that were perceived as being closest to them. Probably Dean, Dave, and whomever else they chatted with a lot. I could be way off, but that sounds about how low they (the Wises) would stoop.

I too hold no faith that there are "a few" folks on this forum that should in entirety be trusted with what amounts to the reputation of the people Christina is implicating. Being lumped in with the Wises could put someone's rep down for good, and I don't know about the rest of ya'll but I'd be way more comfortable with everyone doing their little part to bring the truth to light as has happened with the unWise stories in the near past.

About your wife cussing..I don't have a lot of faith in people that can't use English to get their points across, and I have been upset with someone that messed with my husband..I didn't have to get her in front of an audience and show my backside.

I haven't finished reading everything yet. But Deb you spoke my husband's name in chat before anyone else did. Deb you proceeded to speak badly about my husband when I wasn't even talking to you. Deb you proceeded to do all this knowing I was Dean's wife and was in chat. If anyone showed their backside to an audience it was you. I was NOT going to stand by and let you speak of my husband behind his back without saying anything.

Furthermore, this forum is NOT for personal pissing duels between members. Matter of fact, there really isn't any forum on this site allocated for that purpose. If such issues cannot be resolved privately, then you all need to meet somewhere in person and start taking whacks at each other with two-by-fours until SOMETHING gets resolved.

I personally don't care who doesn't like whom, nor who doesn't trust whom. If it continues, rather than trying to figure out who is at fault, and then be inundated with "but HE started it!", I will simply ban all participants for a few days. That way you can all just get pissed at me for a while.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

You do not understand the mechanics of how the chat system works. A member cannot be blocked from entering the chat if they have access to any forum on this site. Yes, they can be banned from the chat, but only from within the chat and while they are currently taking part in it. The ban is not permanent even if the above mentioned conditions apply. They will be able to access the chat later. That's two entirely different mechanisms at work that you are confusing yourself, and apparently working yourself into a lather over.

Furthermore, as Harald stated, if a member creates their own private chat, then they have an implicit right to do as they please within their own private room there (barring illegal activities, of course). That includes removing members who may guess at the password. As I understand it, Deb was the one who created that private chat room, so the only one calling the shots there was Deb herself.

Rich, I understand the chat system just as you described it. I didn't say she could be banned permanently, I'm just saying that her stay could have been terminated as quickly and easily as mine was. I know she could still be there as long as there wasn't a moderator around to keep her out, but had Harald not been there, I wouldn't have been banned either. Really, there is no "lather", but when people asked why she was allowed to stay, they were lead to believe that there was nothing that could have been done.
Deb did create the password, and I did weasel my way in. Deb allowed me to stay, and I watched as she kicked others out. She didn't remove me for guessing the password. Had Deb kicked me out, I would have gone back to the main room and not thought anything of it. The message that I got was that I was banned and needed to try later.

Originally Posted by MagickalMorphs

If I am understanding the gist of what supposedly went down in the chat room, Christina is trying to throw some other folks under the bus? Ask yourself this question - if you were going down and someone else truly was in on it, wouldn't you burn them immediately rather than waiting a few weeks and then conveniently remembering they were involved? Perhaps what is more likely to be happening in their world is that they're starting to feel the burn, and as they've done in the past, are fabricating more story to try and take the heat off of them, where it squarely belongs. My guess is that the people mentioned were ones that were perceived as being closest to them. Probably Dean, Dave, and whomever else they chatted with a lot. I could be way off, but that sounds about how low they (the Wises) would stoop.

I too hold no faith that there are "a few" folks on this forum that should in entirety be trusted with what amounts to the reputation of the people Christina is implicating. Being lumped in with the Wises could put someone's rep down for good, and I don't know about the rest of ya'll but I'd be way more comfortable with everyone doing their little part to bring the truth to light as has happened with the unWise stories in the near past.

OMG finally!! I agree 100%

Amanda

Originally Posted by JudyC

3. "We're waiting for certain 'evidence' to be e-mailed to us and then it will be reviewed by a select few" ........... since when is BOI-related evidence only meant to be reviewed by a "select few"? Since when does a "select few" get to decide what is "worthy" to be shared on the BOI?

This is the part that bothers me the most. A "select few" review isn't what the BOI is about and never has been. As I stated in the other thread, it goes against the entire "permanent and transparent" principle the site is FOR.

(I know I'm a relatively new poster, so I'll probably be discredited. So be it. But the Wise scandal brought me out of the woodwork after being a BOI reader for years and years with pride and amazement at what it does.)

It took the sleuthing work of a LOT of people in the original thread to bust open all of the lies in the forged documents we were given. I'm not sure "a select few" would have been able to hunt down the exact font the fake check was dummied in, for example. If she's giving us more forged, fake "proof" of things, aren't more eyes better? A couple of people can overlook things, or not have the skills to bring them out. It took a large handful of people to really bust open the extent of the crimes and lies when this all shook down.