Quote from: csun on September 06, 2014, 12:57:25 AM

Quote from: Teka on September 06, 2014, 12:36:46 AM

Quote from: csun on September 06, 2014, 12:33:16 AM

Quote from: synechist on September 06, 2014, 12:26:24 AM

Quote from: csun on September 06, 2014, 12:23:30 AM

Quote from: synechist on September 05, 2014, 11:47:21 PM

Quote from: csun on September 05, 2014, 11:38:48 PM

This is much more than just a project blowing up. This is someone taking money for a project and failing to even produce any tangible proof that the money received was indeed going towards work of the project.

No, this is exactly what happens when a project blows up. Something goes wrong, and then sentiment turns against the project and accusations start flying.

I do PR. I'm very well aware of how quickly people perceive things to be "tangible proof" when in fact they're just misperceived half-truths and emotion.

Case in point: XC's FUDstorm at the hands of a competitor. The FUD was solidly and resoundingly repudiated (before I was part of XC), but not before most people had dumped. And they dumped because they believed they had "tangible proof" that XC was a scam. They were all wrong. The "tangible proof" (like, say items in github, etc.) turned out not to be any kind of proof, and the truth came out.

Oh please stop with the mis-direction.

First:
When a project blows up, sentiments and accusations start flying in addition to valid complaints.

You're just sweeping everything said here as false accusations when in fact:

1. Money was taken for a product.
2. Said product was not delivered.
3. Requests for explanations are met with nebulous / non-verifiable excuses.
3. An entire website filled with data on customer orders was taken down and has not been put back up well after the promised date.
4. No explanations are offered for the delay.
5. Jasin has not answered any further questions and has been MIA for the past week and a half.

Second
You're trying to confound the meaning of tangible proof and the use case. Your example is the use of fabricated proof to attempt to back an accusation. In this case tangible proof constitutes verifiable proof to prove a point; that work was done. Again, the refusal to allow someone to contact a foundry to verify dealings with Fibonaci is a red flag.

I would agree that you have red flags.

I disagree that you have any kind of proof that Jasin is a scammer.

Since allegations of scamming are very serious and highly damaging, they should not be made lightly or without proof.

Therefore, do not accuse Jasin of being a scammer. It's profoundly unethical.

In all courts: taking people's money, failing to deliver a product, failing to prove that you've taken steps to try to fulfill contractual obligations, and destruction or concealment of financial records would very much scream scam.

Again, perhaps you would like to address the hundreds of pages in the threads on failure to do any of what was mentioned above as pure hearsay? That everyone is just out to get Jasin?

In that case, stop attacking xc members and xc itself and battle Jasin in court.

Perhaps you can point to a direct quote where I am attacking XC members and XC?

Other than the one sentence of "FUD: You are either very naive, stupid, or being paid very well. Take your pick." because some bloke is wasting my time by posting illogical arguments and parroting back the same invalid arguments over and over? But really it's more of a satire.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip?

I only chimed in because someone here is insistent that Jasin is not scamming people. That he took money from imaginary people, and that hundreds of pages of posts is not substantive.

Perhaps the title of the thread wasn't the most subtle approach, but you as a PR person should probably know why major companies tend to distance themselves from prominent employees that get involved in scandals?

Sorry, I should have specified that as being general advice to everyone.