RJK890 said:
You/We may be curious, and even speculate, but what is the point?
I believe many people see the point. Sorry if you don't.
RJK890 said:
Most people would not inform the other person if your best friend of 15yrs was having an ongoing affair with the guys wife, and had actually fathered what he believed were his children.
Are you saying John should have informed this community if Mike had confided in him about being behind the Shrillomn account, among others?
I would not betray my own best friend, would you? Seriously!
Nope. Read my questions again. In John's post he appeared to be stating that he did not know that Mike was Shillomn. That was posted before Mike admitted that he was, in fact, Shrillomn. My questions revolved around the doubt that John's statements inferring that he did NOT know were truthful.
RJK890 said:
Maybe, just maybe, if Mike were to have been behind the DDOS attack and confided in John about that, would I think he was towing the fine line between being a moral and ethical person, and a loyal "best friend," by not coming forward with that info.
I don't recall saying I expected any such thing.
RJK890 said:
I have not read any of Mike's alter ego's post's yet, but it seems from early post's in this thread that more than just Mike and John were thinking lockstep about some of the things that Mike was evidently unhappy with concerning this site. Maybe they were all in on it. That was just a conspiracy theory joke, don't let the paranoia run wild
If you haven't read the posts by the alter egos, then you are posting without the benefit of knowing what you are talking about. I would suggest you educate yourself on the topics you are trying to post about, and save the rest of us the time necessary to try to spoon feed that info to you.
RJK890 said:
Rich, why did you decline a community fund to positively identify who was responsible for the DDOS attack? I feel that it would be a waste of $8k(+), but if some of the members were willing to pull together to absorb the cost, why not? If Mike was not behind it, wouldn't you like to know who was before it happens again.
Firstly, I doubt the membership would be able to come up with the total amount necessary. The amount quoted was given to me as just a ballpark figure. So it could cost more. Which would leave me holding the bag to come up with the shortfall or else going through all the headache and trouble of returning the monies donated that did not meet the goal needed. To illustrate what I mean, imagine me having to refund 200 PayPal payments of $25 each and the time necessary in order to do that.
Secondly, the guys offering this service did not offer me a
guarantee of results. Without any guarantee, I am not willing to waste that kind of money simply for the EFFORT to produce results. If they failed, I would have all those members who donated for the RESULTS to have to answer to.
Thanks, but no thanks.
RJK890 said:
I am not taking Mikes side or aligning myself with "scum." I think it has been proven that Mike was behind the Shrillomn account. Probably others as well, and it appears he lied about at least the "Walk of Life." It has been suggested that he was behind the DDOS attack, with good logic for suspicion, but no evidence. People should evaluate those facts and decide for themselves whether Mike is a "bad guy", "scumbag", "good guy who lost his way and got out of hand", or a "deranged cyber terrorist, bad guy scumbag, with good business ethics." In my opinion, John should not stand trial in regards to this thread.
I agree. That is why this forum is called the "Board of Inquiry", and not the "Judge and Jury Room".
Evidence and facts can be presented. Everyone reading those details has to make their own decisions about what they want to believe as well as WHY they choose to believe that way.
Mike was asked via private messages to STOP with the false identities and evidence indicates that he failed to heed that request. It is hoped that this thread will give him sufficient incentive to cease and desist that sort of activity on this site.
As far as John is concerned, my question had a simple goal: To ask John if he was being truthful with us concerning the statements he made in support of Mike.
Some brought up the possibility that not only did John know about Mike's alternate identities, but may have also participated with Mike using those IDs. I am not prepared to comment either way at this time about that probability.
And while I am thinking about this, some brought up that they thought this was not a BOI issue. I beg to differ. My concerns about Mike, whether they were actually perpetrated by Mike or not, caused me to incur financial losses. It was the trolling activities that evidence points to Mike being behind that led to the decision to take precautionary steps to protect my sites from POSSIBLE damages by someone already appearing to be attempting to cause disruption of this site.
So tell me how someone who lost $150 on a purchase of an animal posting here about that loss differs from the financial loss I incurred by having to lease a separate server in order to mitigate the possibility of malicious activity caused by someone who had access to accounts on whatever server those accounts are located on.
Please tell me you will not get worked up now That I said you were wrong. 