This post is a reply (off-list) to comments & constructive criticism relating to my credibility on a list relating to Alternative Currencies. In essence the commenter suggests that he’s impressed with some of my work but thinks that I shouldn’t be talking about ‘crazy conspiracies’ on the same website as any meaningful commentary on Community Currencies or my reporting of serious investigations. My replies [interspersed] explain that Alt. Currencies, investigations and conspiratorial subjects are all only a part of what I write about, but that as a straight-shooter, I’m a total package. This works both ways, causing shallow thinkers to bounce off but attracting the truthseeker, deeper thinkers and those like-minded. Enjoy!
Previous discussion with all four identities referenced here have occurred. These are all people who know each other from online engagement, years in fact.
IDENTITY 1 > @Dennis – I’d like to make an observation on credibility,
Your feedback is genuinely appreciated @[name]. This list is polarised on virtually every topic that has stuck its head above the parapet.
IDENTITY 1 > since you have taken on a bit of a “crusader” role.
Agreed. Be careful though not to confuse appearances from reality. It may APPEAR that I’m out to get people or companies. I’ve said many times AND I MEAN IT, there nothing here that is personal, not even the [sometimes] ultra-aggressive conman Daniel Evans. I sat down with Daniel and interviewed him face-to-face in a conflict situation for my first report on Ormita in early 2009 then spent more than an hour with him afterwards over a beer. Bartercard refused to talk. Ron Whitney cut off communications with me early on. I conducted extensive private communications with Annette Riggs behind the scenes until she stopped communication. Rob van Hilten too wanted to talk until he read the draft of the first post then terminated communications. I could speak to anybody of these people at any time and despite what they may think and claim, I’d give them all a very fair hearing and as much time as they wanted. [ I am very fortunate that I do have time!]
My crusade is to speak the truth and provide meaningful commentary on what I find. I fight deception, misrepresentation and fraud as a result of asking questions, thinking, analysing and blogging about it. I would note that the crusader role can be passive or aggressive (or in between). I prefer mostly more of the passive but standing for something, especially the truth, in a sea of deception can indeed be a revolutionary act as another smart guy has already observed.
IDENTITY 1 > When I read the comments of the judge in the Dutch case, I found myself agreeing with his dismissal of the veracity of your claims after doing research on your website.
Well done for at least reading those comments – some haven’t, yet they still want to contribute to the discussion – foolishness.
You raise multiple subjects in one sentence, and my answers raise even more, so let’s go:
- Dutch Court Ruling. I was the one who blogged about and published this ruling! Note that you read the comments courtesy of me, yes, me, because I personally retyped the Dutch that I pulled out from a scanned PDF of the entire dozens of pages of judgement supplied to me via my Tipline. I then translated these parts into English by Google Translate and I posted them to MY website, note that this is ME blogging about credibilty NOT IRTA nor Tradeqoin, as an example used in the fourth of a five-part series on Credibility. Note that this was a series that I started on 29 November 2014 long before IRTA went public with the Dutch Judge’s words and was a specifically about credibility. It was then extracted and put on IRTA’s website with some spin [more on that in a minute] by people who had a vested interest in smearing my credibility!Have you ever wondered why I was the one who even took these supposedly damning words public – in fact did you [a general ‘you’ to any detractor] even know that it was me? And why did IRTA never even acknowledge the source of their information – from the very person that they were out to smear? Perhaps it is because for truthseekers don’t HIDE things for political benefit and others do? Perhaps it is that I know VERY well that independent thinkers will see the IRTA post coming from a vested interest with the political nature of their words and acts – clearly designed to smear one of their detractors! [That happened] I knew also that real thinkers will recognise the stupidity of a Dutch Judge rejecting one argument because of another unrelated belief. [That happened too and still does!] The people that I respect ‘get’ this all easily – not because of just one post but because I’m constantly, week after week, month after month shooting dead-straight. IRTA and Tradeqoin walked straight into a trap (it was a fortuitous thing not designed, BTW), revealing their true colours to the discerning! Please let me repeat this so it is perfectly clear what actually happened:
- Tradeqoin took TradeXchange to court in The Netherlands suing them with many dozens of issues
- The Dutch judge struck them ALL out bar one
- I took that judgement, translated the one aspect where Tradeqoin ‘won’, published it along with my analysis
- IRTA took the one judgement (which they learned from me), went to their friend/Board Member, the complainant then trumpeted it to the world as proof of my lack of credibility [thinking I’m sure that they had scored a coup]. I, however play for keeps and have need to manipulate others’ opinions for political gain. Thank you IRTA and Tradeqoin for publishing it, pumping it and revealing your shallowness, incompetence and true colours.
- I did or said NOTHING until now when my credibility is questioned.
- All claims in court were rejected bar one. Now what I didn’t do was to translate the screeds and screeds of claims that were rejected, BTW. The court case was a real crack-up! Do you [again a general ‘you’] know that Tradeqoin attempted to get the court to rule that TradeXchange should be prohibited from communicating with me? No, seriously . . . this is fact . . . Tradeqoin sought a Dutch court to issue an order to prevent their rival Dutch Trade Exchange from communicating with a Samoan investigative blogger! This is the stuff of crazy, desperate people who then tout that their opposition lost a court case! Hmmm . . . little wonder that Tradeqoin’s projections, membership and performance all carry a little, what would you say, embellishment? TQ brought so many complaints (dozens) to the court it was comical and they got only one hit – and that based on a logical fallacy at that! So the response of the court was essentially . . . DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, AGREED [witness not credible – I’m not going to even read the evidence!], DENIED, DENIED, DENIED etc. Now if the evidence not accepted by the judge contained facts and not opinion (which it mostly did because the judge listened to Tradeqoin’s claim that the defendant’s witness was not credible because he had a blog and believed . . . etc) then it’s a joke on TQ’s presentation of the case as a success, is it not? All those who trumpeted it as a ‘loss’ for the defendant will be shown for who they are – ones with an agenda! Not so me . . . I say all the time that the truth is not in a hurry nor has need of violence. Note also that usually the longer that you leave the corrupt to do their thing, the more evidence one has to convict them, and they often self-destruct.**
- The Dutch Judge was a SHE and I’ve said before that I think she’s “crazy”. The judge was a her BTW not a he. Simultaneously to this hearing, the Dutch national newspapers were having a national poll to determine HOW BAD (not IF, but HOW bad) the Dutch people considered their judiciary actually were! To the informed being pinged by a Dutch Judge is actually a mark of honour and brings enormous amusement to some and ‘knowing bewilderment’ to those of us who understand issues of natural justice! The judge has also made serious flaw in her judgement misquoting and ignoring key evidence (not even presented to the court because of time constraints for the complainant took up most of the available time!). Should the defendant appeal, and should the judge be found to be in error, what would Tradeqoin and IRTA do then? Apologise and retract? Yeah right!
- The Logical Fallacies. In the West we tend to think that it is the evidence that matters. Not so in The Netherlands! The defendants would definitely win in an appeal for the judge has used multiple logical fallacies – it matters not whether I believe that the moon is made of cheese nor if I’m a Jew, Muslim, paraplegic or am located in Samoa, it is the EVIDENCE that generally matters in most Western courts. Now what you haven’t seen and something that TQ will never show you is the EVIDENCE supplied to the judge which she totally passed by because of, well you know why . . . ‘I believe something that she doesn’t’. That’s a serious breakdown in justice. I don’t make decisions for other people but I would take the matter further if I was the defendant because I’m a fighter and never give up when I take up a cause. The defendant has to balance his time/resources and political situation in making his decision and I tell you now that despite private claims that I’m tight with the defendant, I simply don’t know why he hasn’t appealed. I haven’t discussed it with him; I haven’t given any professional opinion or advice to him and anything I might have said would have been along the lines of what I’ve just written here: “You would be sure to win an appeal”. That’s pretty much it!
- Confidential Information.I might not reveal all information all the time, for good reasons too. Often I am bound by confidentiality agreements, which I honour religiously. My informants know this and trust me. In all my blogging for years I am aware of only once when I accidentally broke confidence of someone (a timing issue and not a content issue) and I rectified the issue immediately, explained and apologised. That’s all I could do. Furthermore I often make value judgments and some of this is subjective. For example I called Tradeqoin a scam long before I had completed the membership survey, but I did this based on credible evidence not all of which I could talk about or share. My telemarketing survey simply confirmed and quantified the figures at 6% which was actually a LOT lower than I would have predicted BTW. Someone asked me in confidence in the early days on what I had based one claim I made about them, and when I shared the nature of the information I had and how I got it there was a big expelling of air and the words along the lines of, “Holy sh*t! That’s dynamite!” In regards to the Dutch judge’s comments I have more information than her, than Tradeqoin has and what the public has. I am VERY ready to bring the evidence into the courtroom too!
- Reserved information. There’s also another reason that I sometimes hold back and it is to give others the opportunity to rectify the problem in a professional manner OR to give them more rope with which to hang themselves. Very occasionally someone chooses to come clean and does things professionally. When I’ve kept some back, I can use that as a test to see whether they are genuine in rectifying the matters. If for example I ‘ping’ TQ for fraudulent membership claims but also know that their trading figure claims are also misrepresented, I don’t have to hammer them on both. If they do things right then I can leave it all alone, but if they try to defend the indefensible and claim that I’m [whatever] then I have more information that proves their true nature. At the beginning I take a lot of flak personally but often as people start to see the ship sinking they step sideways, distance themselves and protect themselves. It happened this way big-time with Ormita once the report was out. It happened a little with IRTA as some long-term members started to get wise to what was happening, and it’s in the early days of happening with Qoin/Tradeqoin. These things build up steam over time. The point here is that strategically I do not always spill all the beans upfront.
- Researching my website should only be the beginning for those who are diligent and have integrity. My conspiracy page lists subjects that I have researched, some extensively and others only momentarily. That should only be a start. This simply sets the scene, the big-picture and as I say on the page it is not a definitive statement BUT even just doing this (quite rare from what I’ve observed in blogging circles) is integrity at work here . . . I’m not afraid to state my beliefs up-front and pay the political price for doing that.What I’ve found though is this: shallow thinkers bounce off my conspiracy page in a huff over maybe one or two things that they strongly disagree with and usually don’t discuss any details. Deeper thinkers however recognise some that they DO agree with me on, then [usually] acknowledge that I have both brains and b*lls, and work with facts, deeply engaging on subjects that I choose to explore. The other thing is that ALWAYS, without exception I have found that those that disagree with me have done FAR LESS research then me. This is a very telling statistic, for I ask you [general] this . . . “How much research have you done into Michelle Obama? Have you seen the longstanding credible claims that Obama is a homosexual? How many hours research have you done over how many years into the subject? How many photographs have you downloaded, viewed, compared, analysed with male/female proportions overlaid? Have you analysed photos that reveal the box the he has, or his Adam’s Apple? How many photos have you compared and viewed in the light of the possibility that his hair, eyebrows, upper body physique are deliberately stage managed to increase his ‘feminine attributes’ and decrease the very obvious male attributes? Have you seen the Whitehouse response and analysed it?*** The same applies with all other contentious or PC subjects. I’ll listen to anybody who wants to deal with facts but just telling me “I just do/don’t believe this” without having done the research and established the likely facts for ourselves is a poorer quality of living than I want to be involved in.
Truth will ALWAYS out. For those who humble themselves; that do not have an agenda, truth is self-evident.
IDENTITY 1 > To be absolutely blunt, I think that you do raise some good points about the integrity and soundness of various CC models (and the motives which drive some of the player), but you have a major credibility problem.
OK Thanks for the positive feedback, that’s appreciated and noted. Let’s get into this credibility thing more then . . . !
IDENTITY 1 > I went to your website once to follow up some statements you had made about Daniel Evans (which turned out to be right on the money) and was immediately confronted with links to absurd climate change denial and antisemitism. Ever since then I’ve had to take every piece of information from you with a hefty grain of salt.
Fantastic! This is your intellectual integrity hard at work. If you believed what I said just because I said it, then you would be empowering me to do the thinking for you . . . the end result of doing this is always a cult – how do you think Goebbels got Hitler and his team so popular – by encouraging independent thought? Hardly!
BUT equal with that caution should be a willingness to acknowledge that I DO score hits and get things right. Note carefully though that your personal bias comes through in your phrase “absurd climate change denial”. There are people on this list AND more offlist as well who do not share what I believe is your gullibility. You may not agree with those who have come to a different conclusion from you about Climate Change but you show a strong leaning to accept the MSM version of historical events and current reality, and condescending words shows your bigotry more than it does resolve differences in a positive, mature manner.
I know identical twins who don’t agree on everything. For this I say, “Thank God!” but the ability to determine truth for yourself based on evidence, not peripheral factors is critical. There are some things that Daniel Evans, Bartercard, IRTA Executive and the Qoin people have said and done that is worthy of merit – likewise with me. Perhaps we should pick out the ones that we want to comment or engage on and ignore the rest?
IDENTITY 1 > If you’re going to go about exposing the frauds and timewasters, consider the extra cognitive burden you place on those of us who consider you an unreliable witness. You have done a good job with some of these cases, but then there’s the other stuff, which occupies a grey area between tinfoil hats and depressing bigotry.
Sorry, I know it’s hard to keep up with a prolific blogger, and I know that you like most others will swing by and listen when it suits you. My advice – park the issues that do not matter and work on what IS important to you here and now, then work with the facts, using what I reveal and putting my analysis into your own context.
IDENTITY 2: > I guess the question is whether it is better to tell one’s own truth or to be more strategic about what we say to whom
This second commenter raises a critical issue, and that is one of strategy and how that dovetails into our personal objectives. For the record my strategy is to shoot straight no matter what, where or when so that even though people might not agree with every topic, thought or word I write that at least they know where I stand. My aims DO NOT have an objective or an achievement in a political sense but to be seen as a guy who asks questions (including the curly ones and the ones that others don’t think to ask) who can think, and has the proverbial to speak it all out.
IDENTITY 1 > If I was going to go about exposing frauds in a particular industry, I probably would keep my links to alien abduction theories on a different website.
Well that is your approach because you want credibility in one industry but it’s not mine. Community Currencies are a section of my website and blogging, of course an important one but only a part of the many topics I write about. My advice is to ignore my warning that Michelle is actual a Michael and hope like h*ll that you never meet ‘her’ in the showers!*
Furthermore if one thinks that one can gain credibility by getting and keeping widespread agreement in this industry we’re dreaming! In my opinion it is much better in the long-run to stand for something than to compromise and end up with the same (or being the same) as everyone else.
The other thing is that it’s a balancing act between attempting to gain or retain credibility by covering the gaps or denying parts of our full picture and putting it all out there (which is my leaning). You can see the unraveling of people who covered things up or hid them in the early stages in our industry and indeed even in my blogging. For example it wasn’t well known that Rob van Hilten joined as an IRTA Board member without even having a trade exchange in contravention of IRTA’s rules. It is well known now. The same with the ‘IRTAcard’ deal with Bartercard and IRTA. Something done behind closed doors came out to bite the principals quite badly in the end, even worse when they tried to cover it up and make excuses retrospectively.
IDENTITY 3 .. whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles…?
Shakespeare translated for those who have an aversion to the classics:
I’ve created a problem with what I’ve said/done . . . .what should I do about it?
Return every stone and arrow to the sender with [non-compounding] interest and a bit of TLC.
Identity 4 > My advice: . . . do something constructive with your time instead of tearing down others with half-baked information, using sources with an agenda and having a crusader mentality.
This advice given from a source previously investigated and found wanting is ignored.
For the record the four original posts on Credibility are:
- Credibility of The Good Book 5 – 3 December, 2014
- Credibility With Conspiracy 4 – 2 December, 2014
- Building Credibility in Samoa 3 – 1 December, 2014
- Credibility While Investigating 2 – 30 November, 2014
- It’s All About Credibility 1 – 29 November, 2014
Making a statement
Lastly, for the record, while my motives are exactly as stated, I’m not entirely stupid and I know very well the likely impact from my writing and analysis on others. There’s a hurting world out there and in my book those who profit from others through deception just make it worse. I am fully aware that I’ve revealed a lot of elephants in the room but I’d prefer to be known as the guy that wasn’t afraid to ask, think and talk than to protect the status quo. Shooting straight might hurt, ruffle a few feathers and bowl over the odd elephant in the process. To that I say, “Good!”
Thanks for reading – if there’s something you’ve got a problem with here, just identify it in the comments and I’ll try to fix or address it. Questions are also welcome.
* To those who still haven’t ‘got it’, for goodness sake, just LOOK at him will you? Emperor meet thy destiny! Take away all what you’ve been told in the media and just LOOK at her – real feminine body proportions, bone structures, neck, shoulders, biceps eh? Eve’s don’t have Adam’s Apples, that’s why we call Eves, “shes” and with Michelle/Michael you don’t even need to look down below.
** This is one of the reasons that I generally do not advocate direct action to bring the corrupt down, for it is my experience that if you leave them alone and simply expose them, they will self-destruct in due course anyway. Ormita was different in that the principal had psychiatric issues but take Tradeqoin for example . . . membership numbers a joke, trade volume minimal, unattractive products or [mainly] services and member satisfaction at an all-time low, key staff gone, deception abounding and totally leaderless . . . why waste time attempting to ‘bring them down’ when they’re doing that very well by themselves?
*** This is a trick question! Ignoring genuine conspiracy claims is a deliberate technique used by those who have something to hide. The proviso though is that you need to be able to muzzle the MSM to use it. I think Obama’s team can do this ok!