Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

[nolemmings]

Jeff, I apologize--I didn't realize the reference to someone whose card was apparently "wished" to be altered was yours--I simply didn't follow the links because for whatever reason, it didn't matter to me who had been singled out. I can now understand your position much better.

I still do not like the pasting of private emails, corroboration of which I believe to be immaterial. I think it could have been handled differently and better, but whatever. That's the way I see it, and as long as we (the board as a group) can agree to disagree on that, then I'm OK with it.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I still do not like the pasting of private emails, corroboration of which I believe to be immaterial. I think it could have been handled differently and better, but whatever. That's the way I see it, and as long as we (the board as a group) can agree to disagree on that, then I'm OK with it.

Open to how you think it could have been handled better?

[nolemmings]

at first blush, I believe I would have contacted Kevin directly with my "evidence" and asked for if not demanded an explanation. Depending on what he had to say, and assuming I was unsatisfied, I'd like to think I would (at most) tell him as much, and mention that I planned on disclosing the gist or content of the emails in front of the board, still not posting it verbatim. Perhaps there was some context or explanation that escaped me or that would lessen my outrage at what I first had been told. In short, I would likely give him at least one and likely more than one opportunity to explain himself to me privately before ever exposing the exact words of what supposedly had been said.

[wonkaticket]

Todd that's a fair and good response.

I had thought of that but Kevin had been so dishonest within the rest of the email which for the record I didn't post on here because it did not have any direct bearing on the disturbing comments he had made in Sept of 2008.

In the end I really doubted getting a straight answer from Kevin which as of this evening Kevin has reinforced that thought in my mind.

Once agian his story has been tweaked. On the other board it wasn't just a comment made in the heat of anger at all of us. It was a premeditated lie in order to make Scott Elkins feel better that someone was getting revenge on the net 54 crew for comments directed at Scott and Kevin during the underprint thread. So he admitted to fraud being an innocent man to make another person feel better about some chicken jokes?

You know something else Todd I was so disgusted by the comments and the rest of the email I really didn't want to even be associated with him in any way verbally or via email.

After weeks of eating and breathing scammers and pouring over emails from guys like Chan I saw a clear reason to post this IMO.

But to be safe I ran this by many folks and all but one was supportive.

Todd I hope you understand where I'm coming from?

Cheers,

John

[Exhibitman]

Since no one is denying the genuineness of the email itself, the question isn't whether Kevin wrote it, it is whether or not Kevin was lying when he wrote it. IMO, doesn't really matter because either way his credibility is shot: was he lying then or is he lying now?

As far as the propriety of discussing it here, I am all for the "outing." Flatly stating that you have cheated N54 members is far worse than the whispered allegations of impropriety in bidding at Mastro or even the generalized admission of "preparing" cards that Doug Allen made; it is specific evidence of a fraudulent act, not just a generalized suspicion.

As for what happened, we will likely never know. My experience in 19 years worth of suing and defending fraud cases is that direct communications from the alleged scammer before he knows he has been caught are the strongest and most damaging evidence of fraud, other than the once in a blue moon actual admission in cross-examination. There is simply no reason to lie when there is no inkling of being caught. If I was pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of a customer of Kevin's, this email would be Exhibit #1.

[Abravefan11]

Wonka I think you did the right thing.

Even given your credibility from recent work on the Chan situation, you outing Kevin without the email to back you up wouldn't have had the same impact and more than likely would have been reduced to a he said/he said situation.

And since the email (whether a lie or not) claimed to defraud Net54 members, it had to be brought to the boards attention.

[Leon]

Your last post is exactly what I thought when telling John I thought it was ok to post the email string. Had this just been between, and involving, 2 board members then most likely I would have asked for it not to be posted.

Imagine if it wasn't a lie and board members DID get scammed? Then it would have been partially my fault for not allowing the information out. The scales weren't full tilt to one side but the pendulum swung to the side of outing, for me. The rules are staying the same though. Private emails ordinarily shouldn't be posted on the board. This was extraordinary. I do check with others on these things to get opinions and the opinions I got swayed to letting the email be posted. Some will disagree with my decision and that is ok. I can live with it. Heck, around 10% of the board thinks the old board was better? That's ok too....though I wish those 10% liked it more.