Artiste, I was rather surprised at the following three Replies that were made to anyman today...
The fact of the matter is this - there is no legal way for you to secure private information (name, phone number, email address outside of those used in the eBay environment). You are claiming to have secured personal identification and sharing that with the IRS and giving them a way to connect user ID's with personal identities. You also have connected an eBay user ID with a personal identity which is a clear violation of the eBay rules:
Interesting statement, anyman.
You (or any other of your people behind this username) wouldn't have ever initiated any of this type of securing of private information on others yourselves, would you have?
You know, at first I was going to say, "No you haven't." but thought it through a little bit more and realized that the answer is "Yes." but not in the way >you would like< it to be. The nerve is that you are given to devious methods of gaining information, much like your leaders and that is rather appalling.
Another interesting observation, anyman. You are sure this is not transference on your part, as Fran was referring to?
Are you saying that Garwin McNeilus never helped 3ABN leaders put wiretaps on people?
Interesting statement, anyman.
You (or any other of your people behind this username) wouldn't have ever initiated any of this type of securing of private information on others yourselves, would you have?
I really hate to be disappointing so many of you, but no, I haven't. Any information I have garnered has come from publications readily available on line, from professional medical boards, listings of grant/investment activities, and just plain 411.com and the admissions of those writing. There has been no need to sink to levels of illegality. So sorry to disappoint you, but it's up to you . . . believe it or not . . . I am not going to try to convince you. As far as your dastardly insinuation that there is more than one person posting under this user name - again, you couldn't be more wrong, just me, one "anyman" . . .
Now, how about dealing with the conversation as it is evolving instead of trying to play the distraction/redirection game?
As for the "dastardly insinuation", there have been several that have noted a recent change in ways of wording sentences, grammer, etc.
As for the rest of the information you have been garnering, you and/or those in your employ must have been busy...glad you think we are so important.
Artiste, I am bringing the following quote to you in your position as Artiste, the member, and not as Artiste, the moderator. Please be clear that I am not breaking the rule about discussing moderator actions. What you have said to anyman in the three posts I have quoted above clearly appear to be indirectly inferring that anyman is someone, Garwin or Danny perhaps, who has ordered surveilance. Just want to remind you of a decree that was posted about a week ago and caused Sam to receive a time out:
ADMIN HAT ON
WARNING: There will be no references to member's identities, either directly or indirectly, on the Forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF
ADMIN NOTE: Sam is now under a 48 hour Posting Ban for the above action. Any further infraction of the same type by Sam will result in an immediate 7 day ban for him.