Bearing False Witness, and where it fits in

[Chameleon Company]

Since you locked the other thread Rich, (Jennifer Jamison, BOI) the issue regarding whether posting as an alias false witness against another is better suited here anyway. After this last post of yours, before locking the thread:

No Jim, not at all. My business reputation is secure enough, and I am confident enough in my own personal reputation that I would do no such things. Matter of fact, on one of the original renditions of the BOI, this pretty much happened, and that thread was not deleted, nor was the person banned. I would have thought you would know the answer to your own rhetorical questions, so you are only trying to justify your position with frivolous analogies.

This particular thread has nothing at all to do with a business related incident at all, and fully appears to be personally motivated.

If there is a case of where someone is bearing false witness against another in relation to a business relationship, or has a legitimate gripe camoflaged with a false name, then the place to try to resolve that issue is within the thread itself where such action has taken place. Creating a separate thread solely for the purpose of calling into question someone's identity dilutes and obscures what the BOI is here for. It could easily become cluttered with a series of pissing match threads between two or more members, having nothing at all to do with any direct business relationship. Such issues only have relevance within the original thread where such person stated claims that are being questioned because of misgivings about their identity. In such incidents, yes, discrediting the source of information because of the bogus nature of the identity is certainly acceptable and prudent. But starting entire new THREADS abous such identity issues? Sorry, but no. I just don't want to see the BOI cluttered with every incident of this nature.

And while I am thinking of it, Jim, this particular quote from you is evidence of pretty low stooping for you:

Quote:
Its your forum Rich. Never stopped you in the past from deleting whatever you chose to.

Damn few threads or posts are ever deleted from the BOI, and even then ONLY when they are a blatant violation of the rules. Even then, I prefer leaving them if they still contain information that I feel is of value, regardless of the violation. I believe you KNOW this to be a fact, but are finding a stetching of the truth to be convenient in this discussion.

But in any event, BS aside, this thread really serves no purpose for what the BOI is intended to be here for. Please go play your porn star "whois" guessing games somewhere else.

... so here it is. Despite your logic, I am still in the boat that lying about someone's business, or their character, using an alias, if allowed in a thread, is reason enough for some to want to call that entity out in a separate thread. Not a "specific business transaction". OK. Big deal. Lock the thread then. Or solicit opinions, and disagree, and lock the thread. Why then the personal attacks? The OP wanted the issue to get more attention than you thought it deserved or warranted within the rules. I see no evidence that Tim was "personally motivated" in creating the thread. After trading PM's with him about it yesterday, I'm pretty sure his motivations were quite objective. Others took this more seriously than you, for whatever reason, and why you have to cast aspersions on their motivations ... only the Shadow knows

What was your contribution to the issue ? A link to a Wikipedia entry ... LOL ! A false allegation of a felony was made, by a clear alias, and that was your contribution !! Wikipedia !! Heck, why not sling more mud .... everybody else is doing it, right ? Bill S's disagreement with you was motivated by an earlier zinger by you, huh ? Couldn't be he really thought you had stooped low yourself ? You call it a "porn star guessing game", while I believe the OP was serious in soliciting information not about a "porn star", but about someone posting lies in your forum in multiple threads. The police got involved as well, as it was also seen by some as a threat against a physical business and its employees, especially once Harald noted it as a Spokane IP. Go figure huh ? "Guessing game" to you ... sigh ....

I highlighted in black above some of your post. My apologies if I did not include "lock or move or ban" as options you have at your disposal to address concerns, and which are more frequently used. You are correct, you rarely delete. I know that. My apologies for leaving that impression, as it is not supported by facts. It was not the impression I wanted to leave, but I was too hasty with my words. The rest of the highlights, which I regard as not being worth a pot to piss in, are also not worth debating IMO. You are most welcome to those opinions, although I will comment that if, in your opinion, I "stooped low", I was still eye to eye with you.

Of course, you could have just said "Sorry, but this is locked" without the drawn out drama and aspersions. Happy holidays to you none the less !

 

[Bill Stonegate]

First off, sorry about the last cryptic post I wrote in that thread. It was a lame attempt at humor, lampooning how absurd the thread had become.

Anyhoo, Jim is right about why I had a problem with the Wiki link to the woman's daughter. It had nothing to do with any warning points I received. I didn't even remember them.

 

[WebSlave]

Since you locked the other thread Rich, (Jennifer Jamison, BOI) the issue regarding whether posting as an alias false witness against another is better suited here anyway. After this last post of yours, before locking the thread:



... so here it is. Despite your logic, I am still in the boat that lying about someone's business, or their character, using an alias, if allowed in a thread, is reason enough for some to want to call that entity out in a separate thread. Not a "specific business transaction". OK. Big deal. Lock the thread then. Or solicit opinions, and disagree, and lock the thread. Why then the personal attacks? The OP wanted the issue to get more attention than you thought it deserved or warranted within the rules. I see no evidence that Tim was "personally motivated" in creating the thread. After trading PM's with him about it yesterday, I'm pretty sure his motivations were quite objective. Others took this more seriously than you, for whatever reason, and why you have to cast aspersions on their motivations ... only the Shadow knows

What was your contribution to the issue ? A link to a Wikipedia entry ... LOL ! A false allegation of a felony was made, by a clear alias, and that was your contribution !! Wikipedia !! Heck, why not sling more mud .... everybody else is doing it, right ? Bill S's disagreement with you was motivated by an earlier zinger by you, huh ? Couldn't be he really thought you had stooped low yourself ? You call it a "porn star guessing game", while I believe the OP was serious in soliciting information not about a "porn star", but about someone posting lies in your forum in multiple threads. The police got involved as well, as it was also seen by some as a threat against a physical business and its employees, especially once Harald noted it as a Spokane IP. Go figure huh ? "Guessing game" to you ... sigh ....

I highlighted in black above some of your post. My apologies if I did not include "lock or move or ban" as options you have at your disposal to address concerns, and which are more frequently used. You are correct, you rarely delete. I know that. My apologies for leaving that impression, as it is not supported by facts. It was not the impression I wanted to leave, but I was too hasty with my words. The rest of the highlights, which I regard as not being worth a pot to piss in, are also not worth debating IMO. You are most welcome to those opinions, although I will comment that if, in your opinion, I "stooped low", I was still eye to eye with you.

Of course, you could have just said "Sorry, but this is locked" without the drawn out drama and aspersions. Happy holidays to you none the less !

Jim, one of the few comments you made here which I feel worth of the time to answer is concerning my link to Wikipedia. A post previous to it recommended going a Google search on an Alias use by Wendy. I decided to do so. What I saw on Wikipedia I felt was worth drawing attention to if anyone were considering doing business with Wendy Childs. It was made without comment pro or con:

Hmm, well this link certainly provides some interesting background information -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianca_Trump

So how you can interpret and sort of "stooping" out of that is maybe all in your own mind. Are you claiming that the information on Wikipedia is false and libelous? Well take it up with them, then.

Further, I have stated my opinion about separate threads which are really nothing more then personal attacks toward another member when badgering them about positive ID. That is all well and good when in a relevant thread directly related to their comments concerning a business transaction with someone else, but no, creating a NEW thread for such a purpose is not welcome on the BOI. You do not have to agree, but that's just the way it is. If you cannot foresee what sort of bullcrap type threads this will likely develop into, then perhaps you need to ponder that eventuality a bit more and drop the blinders put on there by what appears to be a rather "more then normal" interest in Wendy Childs.

As for the personal attacks, Jim read over that thread and tell me who threw the first stone..... Well, I'll give you a helping hand. It was that BS sentence about me deleting threads. So don't play the innocent injured party card with me, please. Don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.

 

[Wraith]

First off, sorry about the last cryptic post I wrote in that thread. It was a lame attempt at humor, lampooning how absurd the thread had become.

Anyhoo, Jim is right about why I had a problem with the Wiki link to the woman's daughter. It had nothing to do with any warning points I received. I didn't even remember them.

Jim, one of the few comments you made here which I feel worth of the time to answer is concerning my link to Wikipedia. A post previous to it recommended going a Google search on an Alias use by Wendy. I decided to do so. What I saw on Wikipedia I felt was worth drawing attention to if anyone were considering doing business with Wendy Childs. It was made without comment pro or con:

Jeane Best- River City Reptiles (Bad Guy)
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=654241&highlight=wiki#post654241

If there is a problem with the wiki link being posted in the thread, Why the hell are people slamming Rich for doing what 3 different people did over 2 freaking years ago?

Why are people NOT busting the balls of the person who originally posted the link back in July of 2006 in 1 of the 4 threads regarding Jeane and Wendy?

Beware of Jeane Best & Wendy Childs
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=411031&highlight=wiki#post411031

Or how about the person who posted the link in September 2006 on a 2nd of the 4 threads.

Jeane Best, Wendy Childs GREAT PEOPLE!
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=428948&highlight=wiki#post428948

Why not the other person who posted the wiki link in December 2006 on yet a 3rd of the 4 threads?

Crazy Cresties - Wendy Childs - Ali Haines- BAD GUYS!!!!!!!!
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=463721&highlight=wiki#post463721

 

[Chameleon Company]

Adrain,
Probably the key words you used were "over two freakin years ago". Yup, you are correct. Two freakin years ago. That's different from Webmaster yesterday, doncha think ? Bill S and I do, so I believe that makes two on the record !

Rich,
As noted, I apologized for an unintended slur, when I used the word "delete". What I should have said, and which was the main point before you got all hung up on the word "delete", was the thought that since when have you ever taken advice before you axed (locked OK ... or moved) a thread ? Heck, if I wanted to hope to get you to do something here, I'd advise you in an opposite way for Chrissakes !

With the following quote, I feel calmed:

drop the blinders put on there by what appears to be a rather "more then normal" interest in Wendy Childs

My motivations here have been explained long before in ad-nauseum theads. Guess you missed it. I don't think Tim or Bill have an interest beyond the valuing of truth and fairplay in motivating their comments, and that works for me. However, where I was concerned that I was eye-to-eye with you in the depths, I now feel a bit better. That turf below me is all yours my friend. Here's a deal. I'll take the blinders off when you get a backbone.

 

[WebSlave]

Here's a deal. I'll take the blinders off when you get a backbone.

I assume that means you really don't want to play here any longer, Jim.

Suits me just fine.

 

[ClayShack]

Cough ...

Originally posted by Webslave:
Don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.

Blinders. Backbone. You seem to be choking on your own words there big fella. I work with Jim, and know him better than most. Its your kitchen <sigh>.

 

[shrap]

Blinders. Backbone. You seem to be choking on your own words there big fella. I work with Jim, and know him better than most. Its your kitchen <sigh>.

So you wouldn't be even slightly biased on the matter then would you....

 

[ClayShack]

If there is bias, the higher degree would be to not acknowledge the relationship in posting, which seems to be the norm so often here. I live and work on the same property, and we share the same couple of computers. My ticket is therefore likely already punched. It will always to be an imperfect world, but we keep trying. Maybe your cup is too often half empty Sammy. Jim takes the heat in the kitchen. Always has. Always will.

Sammy, back in the original threads about Wendy and Jeane, you were one, not the only one, that referred to the mother Jeane as a slut and a whore. Some of us did not feel the mother was guilty of the sins of the daughter. Jim was a friend of Jeane's long before he had a clue about Wendy. It was pretty low-class on your part. Never saw a retraction from you. To coin Rich, Jim never "stoops that low". Everyone has a bias, it would seem. Jim says to wish you well. I wish you well.

 

[shrap]

Sammy, back in the original threads about Wendy and Jeane, you were one, not the only one, that referred to the mother Jeane as a slut and a whore.

Come again? I never said any such thing there, Sparky. I certainly said she was unethical in her business practices but I never referred to Jeane as a slut or a whore. I suggest you get your facts straight. They are in that thread for all to read so go ahead and show where I called her a slut and a whore. You cant.

Some of us did not feel the mother was guilty of the sins of the daughter. Jim was a friend of Jeane's long before he had a clue about Wendy. It was pretty low-class on your part. Never saw a retraction from you. To coin Rich, Jim never "stoops that low". Everyone has a bias, it would seem. Jim says to wish you well. I wish you well.

My issues with Jeane were based on Jeane's actions alone. Not Wendy's actions. In both her own bad business dealings and how she helped cover for Wendy. I know Wendy is her daughter and all but that still dont make it right. I may have broke out out scammer and scumbag on Jeane, but never slut and whore. Please get your facts straight.

Bearing false witness is the title of this thread.... how ironic!!

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Anyhoo, Jim is right about why I had a problem with the Wiki link to the woman's daughter. It had nothing to do with any warning points I received. I didn't even remember them.

I believe at the minimum there is at least a half-dozen threads on the BOI about Jean and Wendy. I think most of them include them as one entity or business. I didn't go back to read what this particular thread was original about, I just looked at the new posts so I'm not sure if the whole thread just dealt with Jean or with Wendy too. Now, I don't pretend to know the motives of the person who brought the thread up as Jim states he does and really have no desire to replay the threads from so long ago but Wendy certainly earned her position with this site. The threats she has made against the site in the past earned her standing here.
To tell you the truth, I can't even remember what any of the complaint(s) made against Jean where.

Someone asked a question in regards to Wendy and Rich provided a link.

Your response-

Shame on you, Rich. You are engaging in the same sort of behavior you profess to defend against. I'm done here. This site has become ridiculous, and deserves to be ridiculed.

Damn shame, since it wasn't always that way.

Besides being factual untrue IMHO, the BOI was a much rougher place most of the time in the past except for about one year out of its history that very strict rules were tried. Which I think is about the time you registered. So what was it that Rich professes to defend against? This forum is provided to give good feedback and out the scum in the hobby. He posted a link he thought gave feedback in regards to a post of a person that asked for more information on Wendy. Disagreeing that the information is irreverent is one thing or that you believe it doesn't belong. Seems easy enough although not good enough for some reason. You got to throw in some hits at the site and the owner just like a few people who always like to push it as far as they can with their posts. Just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why every time someone becomes upset they try to torch the bridge behind them.

Anyway, to bad that you feel the way you do but I will kindly reminder you and anyone else that wants to continue in this forum. Criticism is welcome, but abusive antagonism is not. I would rather not show people to the door permanently. Much easier to walk out and have the ability to walk back in at a later time when agitation over one particular topic subsides.

 

[WebSlave]

Blinders. Backbone. You seem to be choking on your own words there big fella. I work with Jim, and know him better than most. Its your kitchen <sigh>.

Yep, and if you want the same plate of stew that Jim got, then step right up to he counter and place your order.

If there is bias, the higher degree would be to not acknowledge the relationship in posting, which seems to be the norm so often here. I live and work on the same property, and we share the same couple of computers. My ticket is therefore likely already punched. It will always to be an imperfect world, but we keep trying. Maybe your cup is too often half empty Sammy. Jim takes the heat in the kitchen. Always has. Always will.

That's fine about taking the heat in HIS kitchen, but it's a completely different story when he believes he has the right to fling around molotov cocktails in someone else's kitchen. Certainly got him "extinguished" in this one, I believe.....

Oh yeah, about that sentence I highlighted in your quote..... Thanks for that one... Now what made you think to make that statement, hmmm?

 

[ReptileAddictions]

I would like to comment about "Are you claiming that the information on Wikipedia is false and libelous? "

I am claiming so, and can prove it. Why is it everyone believes 100% of what is written on the internet? Just because it is there doesnt make it so.I was told long ago to believe half of what you read and all of what you know.

Lets start with sentence one on there. I was born in Tacoma Washington. Sentence 2. I am an only child. Sentence 3. I married a boyfriend of less than one year and divorced in 4 months.Sentence 4 I started doing porn in 1990-1998. 200+ movies.

So the complete first paragraph is all false. That is a legitimate fact. Some of what is written in the criminal history is in part true, but not completely.

So yes, it does seem inappropriate for ANYONE here or 2 years ago to post something as factual information that is not.

I have elaborated on my past history in the BIO thread. I have nothing to hide. If someone wants to know my history alls they need to do is say "Hey Wendy....did you????". All the assumptions are getting old.

In regards to the alias used by the poster Jennifer. His name is Les Morgan. That is who made the false allegations against me. I highly doubt we will ever hear from him again now that the police are involved.

Like I said before, you can say alot of things about me. Call me a whore or a slut if it makes you feel better, but I wont be called a thief. I have worked hard all my life, even if it was selling my ass but I have paid my own way legally!

 

[ClayShack]

Wendy, last I checked, the only thing required was dirt. Some add water to then make it mud. Facts were not required. Ownership of content not necessary. A few saw it as a further attempt to disparage, that's all.

Sammy, a coworker here reviewed some of the 2-3 year old posts and PM records in the interim. It was suggested you take a look at all that excrement, and if after such you are content with things as they are, and want to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is , then give if a whack. The quote hollered to me after review was "Its done. It was ugly. Leave it lie". If you feel differently after giving passages looks and some thought, you have a phone number, and accusations of false witness can go back and forth for so long as the line is active.

Step right up and place your order

Hope you have a great Holiday !

 

[ReptileAddictions]

I am not certain I completely understand your post, but I have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed

I do know I have NO DESIRE to read 2000 posts, or rehash the past 20 years of my life or even the last 2. How would I have time when I am still trying to get the sticky off??? LMAO

My phone is on!It will remain an open connection for anyone who so chooses!

 

[hhmoore]

Clarence,
There are rules here about posting anonymous third party information (even though I'm sure we could guess the identity of your coworker), and it is generally not appreciated when a member serves as mouthpiece for a another whom has had posting privileges revoked. If Jim wants to pass messages to Sammy through this site, you can send him a PM.

 

[ClayShack]

Harald,
The strong invitation in my post to make use of a phone was fully out of respect for such considerations as per Fauna protocols, as was the pulling of many punches for which there was some angst to throw. But thanks for the reminder. If it was not conveyed directly enough, the topic of how things were said two years ago, and even a debate about "bias", is enormously distasteful in this venue. A review of the old posts will leave at least a few wanting to puke. That was the effect here. Thanks again.

 

[Bill Stonegate]

I believe at the minimum there is at least a half-dozen threads on the BOI about Jean and Wendy. I think most of them include them as one entity or business. I didn't go back to read what this particular thread was original about, I just looked at the new posts so I'm not sure if the whole thread just dealt with Jean or with Wendy too. Now, I don't pretend to know the motives of the person who brought the thread up as Jim states he does and really have no desire to replay the threads from so long ago but Wendy certainly earned her position with this site. The threats she has made against the site in the past earned her standing here.
To tell you the truth, I can't even remember what any of the complaint(s) made against Jean where.

Someone asked a question in regards to Wendy and Rich provided a link.

Your response-



Besides being factual untrue IMHO, the BOI was a much rougher place most of the time in the past except for about one year out of its history that very strict rules were tried. Which I think is about the time you registered. So what was it that Rich professes to defend against? This forum is provided to give good feedback and out the scum in the hobby. He posted a link he thought gave feedback in regards to a post of a person that asked for more information on Wendy. Disagreeing that the information is irreverent is one thing or that you believe it doesn't belong. Seems easy enough although not good enough for some reason. You got to throw in some hits at the site and the owner just like a few people who always like to push it as far as they can with their posts. Just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why every time someone becomes upset they try to torch the bridge behind them.

Anyway, to bad that you feel the way you do but I will kindly reminder you and anyone else that wants to continue in this forum. Criticism is welcome, but abusive antagonism is not. I would rather not show people to the door permanently. Much easier to walk out and have the ability to walk back in at a later time when agitation over one particular topic subsides.

You're a wise man, Dennis. While I stand behind my objection to the Wiki link being posted in that thread as irrelevant and inflammatory, I also apologize for "going over the top".

 

[shrap]

Sammy, a coworker here reviewed some of the 2-3 year old posts and PM records in the interim. It was suggested you take a look at all that excrement, and if after such you are content with things as they are, and want to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is , then give if a whack. The quote hollered to me after review was "Its done. It was ugly. Leave it lie". If you feel differently after giving passages looks and some thought, you have a phone number, and accusations of false witness can go back and forth for so long as the line is active.

Translation: Bla bla bla, senseless rambling that has nothing to do with anything that we were talking about, more bla bla bla.

Enjoy your little game, Jim!

 

[Wraith]

You're a wise man, Dennis. While I stand behind my objection to the Wiki link being posted in that thread as irrelevant and inflammatory, I also apologize for "going over the top".

Why did you not object to that exact same wiki link being posted in the other 3 threads regarding Jeane and Wendy by 3 different people back in 2006....? You were a member a good 7 months prior to the original posting of the link. Why are you jumping all over Rich for posting a link now in the 4th existing thread?