0
"Friends"
Posted by
SirJeff
,
in
Community-Feedback,
Ramblings
29 August 2008
·
19 views
Ramblings
When you spend time online in a group, forum, or chat setting, you end up making "friends" out of people that you never met, and ultimately know nothing more about than what they tell you.
One such person that I considered a "friend" for several years began making an ass out of himself around the first of the year. I decided at that time that I was going to cut off contact with him, based on his actions. Recently, it was brought to my attention that this "friend" is a registered sex offender. He was also a member of a fairly large "help group" (more than 36,000 members) that prides itself on being "family friendly". Management of that group (myself included) unanimously decided that we did not want a registered sex offender in our group, regardless of his guilt or innocence, or the circumstances around his guilty plea (he pleaded guilty to 3 counts of child molestation, served time in prison, and must maintain registration in the sex offender database). We feel that it is our responsibility to protect our members as much as we possibly can, and have known of members as young as 12 in our group.
Now, since all of this has happened, I keep hearing of his statements that "friends" wouldn't jump to the worst conclusions about him, and that "friends" would want to get his side of the story. Well, my take on that is that if we were such good "friends", he should have disclosed the facts up front, instead of leaving me to find out on my own and feel the betrayal of trust that I feel now.
This "friend" is also making all kinds of untruthful statements, which are being believed by those who don't know any better. One such statement is that I, and others, have been "posting all over the web" about his status. I would dare that "friend" to find 3 links to anywhere on the Internet where I have disclosed this information. Of course, no doubt, this blog will be one of those links, even though I don't mention his name, or even his state or country of residence, and give out absolutely no "personally identifiable" information about him.
I also wonder how this person's new "friends" would feel if they knew that he was the person that banned them, or, in the case of one Canuck, that he was the driving force behind her getting banned.
Oh, and Kate, AKA John, AKA Annie, AKA Greta, AKA Geezer, if you sit on the fence long enough, you will no doubt get a picket up the ass.
One such person that I considered a "friend" for several years began making an ass out of himself around the first of the year. I decided at that time that I was going to cut off contact with him, based on his actions. Recently, it was brought to my attention that this "friend" is a registered sex offender. He was also a member of a fairly large "help group" (more than 36,000 members) that prides itself on being "family friendly". Management of that group (myself included) unanimously decided that we did not want a registered sex offender in our group, regardless of his guilt or innocence, or the circumstances around his guilty plea (he pleaded guilty to 3 counts of child molestation, served time in prison, and must maintain registration in the sex offender database). We feel that it is our responsibility to protect our members as much as we possibly can, and have known of members as young as 12 in our group.
Now, since all of this has happened, I keep hearing of his statements that "friends" wouldn't jump to the worst conclusions about him, and that "friends" would want to get his side of the story. Well, my take on that is that if we were such good "friends", he should have disclosed the facts up front, instead of leaving me to find out on my own and feel the betrayal of trust that I feel now.
This "friend" is also making all kinds of untruthful statements, which are being believed by those who don't know any better. One such statement is that I, and others, have been "posting all over the web" about his status. I would dare that "friend" to find 3 links to anywhere on the Internet where I have disclosed this information. Of course, no doubt, this blog will be one of those links, even though I don't mention his name, or even his state or country of residence, and give out absolutely no "personally identifiable" information about him.
I also wonder how this person's new "friends" would feel if they knew that he was the person that banned them, or, in the case of one Canuck, that he was the driving force behind her getting banned.
Oh, and Kate, AKA John, AKA Annie, AKA Greta, AKA Geezer, if you sit on the fence long enough, you will no doubt get a picket up the ass.
. . .well, this substantiates what i had suspected when all of this came down, and i could care less to hear "his side of the story"! i'm so sorry that you (and other's it seems) were put through all that, jeff! i guess this is a prime example of just why i'm so cautious when online anymore. i thank The Power's That Be that you found out about this and were able to remove this pestilence from our midst. thank you so much for all you do to keep other's safe!
His new "crew" is so biased against us, they don't even recognize the huge holes in his story or see that he's definitely "protesting too much." And he's never wrong - it's always someone elses fault. His ego is basking in a pool of their hatred. I'd feel used if I were them (I'd also check the koolaide)