IllianaLancerContra

New Cadets Sexual Assault Accusation

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm sorry if you think it's not appropriate to chastise the parents for putting the minor in this public circumstance, but they did.

The actions are acceptable because the adults in this case put all the information out to the public.  You seem to think that the "public" must shelter these adults from the ramifications of their actions for the benefit of the minor.

I, and many here, don't agree.

It's that simple.

 

Makes sense. However there were some that went beyond that and those are the people I have the beef with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spinning said:

Me.  I was told that a board member is sending out documentation to people outside the org.

The person who told me this received said documentation from a board member and they are not inside the org, so that’s why I asked if Jeff was inside the org or not.  

I think it’s a huge conflict of interest for the board member and it’s frankly, something I would expect from the old board, George’s board. 

This of course would be deeply troubling and also would make the organization look really bad IF TRUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

Asking for further explanation on data provided is fine. I was more pointing to the people that where stating things about go fund me pages and others starting to question the victims home life implying there could be something wrong with the parents/guardian or just plain calling them liars or implying they were in some way blackmailing the organization or that they were cut by a number of corps etc.

That is one monster run-on sentence and paragraph!

You have to admit, don't you agree, that the circumstances of the adult's actions could lead some to believe that the adult guardians are more searching for settlement dollars or black eyes than correcting misaligned behaviors on the part of corps leadership.

The expectation that the victim was "due" some placement in the corps to continue his "healing" is what formed my opinion.  Others, apparently, have their threshold as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

This of course would be deeply troubling and also would make the organization look really bad IF TRUE.

I believe the person that told me.  They are a friend of mine and have no reason on earth to lie to me about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spinning said:

Me.  I was told that a board member is sending out documentation to people outside the org.

The person who told me this received said documentation from a board member and they are not inside the org, so that’s why I asked if Jeff was inside the org or not.  

I think it’s a huge conflict of interest for the board member and it’s frankly, something I would expect from the old board, George’s board. 

Straw man much?

"...told...", by whom?  Isn't this person as culpable for passing "inside information" as the "board member" who released it?

I'm glad "George's board" is now a pejorative, but I'm not so convinced that the "board member" you refer to is as nefarious as your comparison suggests.

Edited by garfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spinning said:

I believe the person that told me.  They are a friend of mine and have no reason on earth to lie to me about this.

OK.  But that doesn't mean their claims are accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, garfield said:

OK.  But that doesn't mean their claims are accurate.

As could everything said by those claiming to know things "that will come out". See how this works when people speak for others or make statements without facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, garfield said:

Straw man much?

"...told...", by whom?  Isn't this person as culpable for passing "inside information" as the "board member" who released it?

I'm glad "George's board" is now a pejorative, but I'm not so convinced that the "board member" you refer to is as nefarious as your comparison suggests.

I didn’t ask them.  I didn’t ask for specifics or the documentation received.

Honestly, I don’t think they are culpable, because they are not the one with a conflict of interest, but of course that’s just my humble opinion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, garfield said:

That is one monster run-on sentence and paragraph!

You have to admit, don't you agree, that the circumstances of the adult's actions could lead some to believe that the adult guardians are more searching for settlement dollars or black eyes than correcting misaligned behaviors on the part of corps leadership.

The expectation that the victim was "due" some placement in the corps to continue his "healing" is what formed my opinion.  Others, apparently, have their threshold as well.

 

I assume the organization will soon release a statement to provide clarity at some point. Until then nothing you say or anyone else says or thinks really matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, garfield said:

OK.  But that doesn't mean their claims are accurate.

They are a trusted poster on this site.  I don’t really need anyone to believe me, I was just hoping that Jeff would be honest about where his inside information is coming from, because he hinted multiple times that he has inside info. 

 

If it is a board member, as I suspect, then I have a huge issue with that and I think many others will as well.  

For the record,  I’ve already been contacted from a board member asking if I was the “Bebe” posting here shortly after I introduced myself to someone questioning why I am anonymous, so hopefully that will help get to the bottom of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.