• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean
29 29

Started by Transplant,

35,153 posts in this topic

Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
Here's another favorite

 

:troll:

 

 

You're right. I probably shouldn't expect much out of someone who enjoys playing "Devil's advocate" and is an auto contrarian ( my least favorite type of person ).

 

Welcome to ignore (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spacy

Spacy

Posted
Posted
All this attention has me feeling like HarveySwick. I must be doing something right. :wink:

 

 

Or you could just say "maybe I was wrong about the whole dad situation" (shrug)

 

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business here.

 

Go back and read the initial exchange between those two ( if it hasn't been poofed ) and then ask me that question.

 

It's still there it hasn't been poofed (yet)

 

So my question still stands. And he's right IMO there is nothing to be gained by proving if the father was involved with his online dealings here. It would only prove he is a bad father who needs some help himself.

 

We will probably never know how much the father was truly involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
All this attention has me feeling like HarveySwick. I must be doing something right. :wink:

 

 

Or you could just say "maybe I was wrong about the whole dad situation" (shrug)

 

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business here.

 

Go back and read the initial exchange between those two ( if it hasn't been poofed ) and then ask me that question.

 

It's still there it hasn't been poofed (yet)

 

So my question still stands. And he's right IMO there is nothing to be gained by proving if the father was involved with his online dealings here. It would only prove he is a bad father who needs some help himself.

 

We will probably never know how much the father was truly involved.

 

His father said he monitored all his email exchanges. So he was at least aware of what was going on to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spacy

Spacy

Posted
Posted
All this attention has me feeling like HarveySwick. I must be doing something right. :wink:

 

 

Or you could just say "maybe I was wrong about the whole dad situation" (shrug)

 

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business here.

 

Go back and read the initial exchange between those two ( if it hasn't been poofed ) and then ask me that question.

 

It's still there it hasn't been poofed (yet)

 

So my question still stands. And he's right IMO there is nothing to be gained by proving if the father was involved with his online dealings here. It would only prove he is a bad father who needs some help himself.

 

We will probably never know how much the father was truly involved.

 

His father said he monitored all his email exchanges. So he was at least aware of what was going on to some degree.

 

I agree his father was probably involved to some degree but the point is nothing could or will be gained by proving this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Logan510

Logan510

Posted
Posted
All this attention has me feeling like HarveySwick. I must be doing something right. :wink:

 

 

Or you could just say "maybe I was wrong about the whole dad situation" (shrug)

 

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business here.

 

Go back and read the initial exchange between those two ( if it hasn't been poofed ) and then ask me that question.

 

It's still there it hasn't been poofed (yet)

 

So my question still stands. And he's right IMO there is nothing to be gained by proving if the father was involved with his online dealings here. It would only prove he is a bad father who needs some help himself.

 

We will probably never know how much the father was truly involved.

 

His father said he monitored all his email exchanges. So he was at least aware of what was going on to some degree.

 

I agree his father was probably involved to some degree but the point is nothing could or will be gained by proving this.

 

Your original question was why would JS admit he was wrong to AR when there was no proof about his dad. Now you're saying that there's nothing to be gained by proving it. I don't know about you, but this is starting to make me a little :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spacy

Spacy

Posted
Posted
All this attention has me feeling like HarveySwick. I must be doing something right. :wink:

 

 

Or you could just say "maybe I was wrong about the whole dad situation" (shrug)

 

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business here.

 

Go back and read the initial exchange between those two ( if it hasn't been poofed ) and then ask me that question.

 

It's still there it hasn't been poofed (yet)

 

So my question still stands. And he's right IMO there is nothing to be gained by proving if the father was involved with his online dealings here. It would only prove he is a bad father who needs some help himself.

 

We will probably never know how much the father was truly involved.

 

His father said he monitored all his email exchanges. So he was at least aware of what was going on to some degree.

 

I agree his father was probably involved to some degree but the point is nothing could or will be gained by proving this.

 

Your original question was why would JS admit he was wrong to AR when there was no proof about his dad. Now you're saying that there's nothing to be gained by proving it. I don't know about you, but this is starting to make me a little :ohnoez:

 

lol I guess I see the bigger point to what JS was trying to say. And yeah this is making me a little :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetalPSI

MetalPSI

Posted
Posted
One of the things that personally saddens me about this situation is that a twelve year old boy apparently just views comics as commodities. There are enough adults around here who just see comics as $$$ and nothing more. IMHO a twelve year old should be reading and enjoying comics....the $$$ aspect shouldn't even factor in yet...again IMHO 2c

 

 

+10 Gazillion

Wait...what? You mean you guys actually READ comics? :whatthe:

 

I can't read, I just like the pics. I only read Playboy :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
9:27 AM on a Sunday, two of my posts deleted even though they blocked out information about the dad and the son, and a couple of people were actively chatting here.

 

hm

 

No. There are no dual-account members here.

I've seen a dual accounter mispost under the wrong ID before, but that was quite awhile ago, and I did not record the userID for posterity. He locked a thread and posted what was wrong with it in the final post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MetalPSI

MetalPSI

Posted
Posted

2c:blahblah: doosh :blahblah: sociopath :blahblah: I would be pissed if taken for a ride by someone I could pickup over my head and throw a couple of yards too

 

I don't think this kind of behavior should be classified as "intelligent". If he has straight A's in school and comes out of university summa laude, THAT'S intelligence.

 

Manipulation does take a degree of smarts, but intelligence? No.

 

I wouldn't mind sharing in PM exactly why I believe this, but I am more than certain noone cares.

 

The human psyche is not all that complicated and predictions based on patterns can be established, with relative ease. Especially since the online world allows people to share so much of themselves. And lets be honest, people LOVE to talk about themselves. Blogs, FB, InstaGram....all these sites are driven towards that.

 

The kid is a child, the father is a doosh and these people have no ethics.

 

So yeah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neopacket

Neopacket

Posted
Posted (edited)
Still believe, as I said when this was first revealed, this was not ALL done only by the 12 year old. Not only the content of the posts and PMs but the timing(during school hours) and frequency lead me to believe the dad was posting just as often as the kid.

 

His dads Facebook says he is home schooled

 

 

Edited by neopacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites
manetteska

manetteska

Posted
Posted
Still believe, as I said when this was first revealed, this was not ALL done only by the 12 year old. Not only the content of the posts and PMs but the timing(during school hours) and frequency lead me to believe the dad was posting just as often as the kid.

 

His dads Facebook says he is home schooled

 

 

I also thought a FB post said something about GIJoe helping out his science teacher or similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
manetteska

manetteska

Posted
Posted

Let's assume that GIJoe's dad actually did monitor his emails/PMs (instead of just saying he did to get other parents off his back), and let's assume that "monitor" means reading through every single one of them.

 

If this is true, from strictly an email/PM perspective, he would see his son buying comics, then later coming back and saying they are not the grade stated. Not sure if one can make the jump (without hearing conversations b/n the two) from that to knowing his son was not telling the truth about stated grades.

 

*** Note: I did not read through every post here, nor track through every FB message, so if there is definitive evidence about the grade negging, I will eat crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darkstar

darkstar

Posted
Posted

Why would he? There is no proof his dad had any dealings with his online business "HERE".

 

that is incorrect

 

As someone who has been communicating with the father via email I can tell you firsthand that the father is aware, at least to some degree, of what has been happening on the boards.

 

When my situation is resolved I will be happy to share the extent of what I know with anyone who is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neopacket

Neopacket

Posted
Posted

As someone who has been communicating with the father via email I can tell you firsthand that the father is aware, at least to some degree, of what has been happening on the boards.

 

When my situation is resolved I will be happy to share the extent of what I know with anyone who is interested.

 

:popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

 

Agreed. IMHO people who believe anything else are living in Candy Land.

Not necessarily. (tsk)

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions/belief. Perception is everything. What is subjective is up to the individual. Just because someone views this in a different light, doesn't mean they are wrong.

 

It was merely my opinion based on what I have observed. I could be wrong. Hope I'm wrong.

I don't think I am, but time will tell.

 

I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's my opinion that if anyone thinks this kid is going to turn himself around due to getting caught, they're delusional.

 

Yeah, some people are hoping this will be a 'learning experience' for the kid.

It will be.

Just not in the way they're hoping.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
29 29
Go to topic listing