I wonder if your parents provided food or shelter to you beyond the age of 12 or 13. If so, I hope it was only because you were "literally" starving. Because if you were able to walk and think, those were "handouts." I wonder if you ever got a birthday present. If so, did you work for it? Because "this is what handouts do to people." Obviously this guy is busted but that doesn't change my attitude generally about the internet and the mad rush to be the first one to call BS on "literally" everything. Sure, people on the internet lie and scam, but does that have to mean that is our first assumption? I wonder how many Rockets insiders we've run off thanks to all the "PROVE IT!!!" or "I call BS" posts. I wonder how many people that came her for advice or a shoulder to cry on left more harmed than helped by the usual jokers.
Also, if you gave money to this guy without requiring proof, even if you got scammed, GOOD FOR YOU. You are good people to begin from a position of faith and trust and then to share what you can afford to with others.
Not sure if serious? There's a world of difference between helping out a family member and helping out some stranger who stumbles into our little corner of the internet?
Don't really see how it's good to get fooled by scammers, not necessarily saying that's the case here. But I don't share your sentiment, there's a fine line between good will and being naive/easily manipulated.
When I hear these self-righteous guys scolding people for being skeptics, I always want to know first if they did put their money where their mouth is. It's kind-hearted of the people who actually gave some money and I am not making fun of them or anything, but those who think they must talk down to the skeptics better gave something themselves.
I like you fine, Jackie. But it's pretty funny to see clutchfans' self-appointed, self-ordained, resident PI calling others self-righteous. As for me, I did not contribute to the paypal account because I have had my identity stolen three times in four years and am worried over entering my info anywhere on the internet if I don't have to. That said, I was the recipient of much generous support (and by many cfneters), during a time of need after my accident. I have tried to pay that forward by donating over $4,000 cumulative total to six different friends in need over the last year or so. I also give money constantly to people that ask me for it and seem worse off than I am. Three nights ago a dude wheeled himself into a bar I was at and asked for a dollar to try to get to his goal of $12 for I don't remember what. I looked in my wallet and had exactly $12 cash so I gave it to him. I don't give a crap if he was 'for real' or not. I would rather trust and 'lose' than doubt and 'win.' But my point wasn't about giving money or whatever and it certainly wasn't intended to be self-righteous. It was about a personal distaste for that other feature of the internet (the one that isn't scamming) of skepticism first and double-skepticism next. I actually developed this distaste after so many instances of seeing popeye or Doc Rocket asked over and over again for their credentials or proof of insider status, every single time they came to give us a scoop. Calling BS is easy, lazy and banal. At least you take it up a notch to stalking.
Well, you have the perfect counter-example right here: The guy pretended to be Terrence Williams. Many people fell for it. If there are no skeptics, every random idiot could come in and pretend to be any player or Rockets employee. I think Clutch takes some pride, and rightly so, in the Clutch BBS being the best source for discussion and also for Rockets information. I don't think it is in his or our best interest to just believe anyone who claims he is player x or player y. And if checking plausibility of information that was voluntarily made publicly available is "stalking" to you...oh well .
I don't say to believe them willy-nilly. I'd just like it if everybody didn't jump on to any potential insider trying to run them away as quickly as possible. Clutch speaks to an insider's validity (or fakery) when he is able. But I doubt he wants any potential insider's first post to be met with a page full of "I call BS" and "PROVE it." Because that's how you lose potential insiders. In fact, I believe we've discussed this in person and he has agreed with me on this point, but I can't say for certain. If I'm misremembering, apologies to Clutch. But if we all get together to run off the insiders just so we can be sure we don't get conned I hardly think that's the best way to make this the best source of Rockets info.
fully believed in the beginning...and i believe bmw3. I don't know what's behind the pulling down of social network sites and his past online activities...but there are a lot of people on this forum who used to be online idiots when they were younger. And there are a lot of people who would make up stories if they felt embarassed about things like money (people tend to keep digging deeper holes).. and a lot of people who would run away from personal attacks and private information being leaked.
And also, to broaden the idea, I hardly think looking at the world with an eye first toward identifying conmen is a very great way to live a life.
It doesn't take the Internet to make a skeptic. A couple of recent examples: 1. After the evening Sunday Mass at our church, after almost everyone had left, a woman approached our Pastor and gave him a sob story and she needed $40 (for a hotel room where she was staying among other things). There was no petty cash around, so I drove to an ATM and pulled out $100 and drove back to give it to her. As we were leaving, we saw a nice truck pull up to pick her up. My wife and I followed it for a while and it went the complete opposite direction from the hotel she was supposedly staying. We learned the next day that this woman scammed 6+ churches that day. 2. I was approached in a parking lot in Houston by a gentleman who gave me a sob story and ended by saying he and his brother needed to get some gas. Rather than giving him money, I offered to follow him to a nearby gas station (a few blocks away) and use my credit card to fill up his tank. After he 'consulted' with his brother, they decided not to take me up on my offer. Folks can become skeptics without the need for the Internet.
He says he is out of work for 2 months. However, this post shows he just signed, 2 weeks ago. He just played a part in a movie and is acting on his 2nd move and says you can direct message him. Is he employed or not employed? In the last 2 months, he is shopping for jerseys, shoes and going to restaurants. Restaurants , shoe stores, and sporting goods stores don't take rain checks. He would have paid for those items with money. He was not telling the truth, when he said he had no money. Those things happened in the last few weeks. Does he have money or does not have money? He has money coming from somewhere to pay for this stuff. His new job? Yes, people do scam others for money. I met a guy that scammed for a few $. He could round up $10-15/hr for $100 extra day by just asking people for help. On the holidays, he would hold up a sign saying guy with 2 kids needs help and he would make $200/day. His kids were grown up and employed. He was spending the money on partying. Why get a job, when you can get $100/day tax free by just asking for it? Eventually, he got into some hard stuff like dope and ended up in the shelter. how do I know this? He was at the Salvation Army and was bragging about how naive people are. I thought he was BSing until he pulled me closer and flashed about $200 in $20s. If Dave was collecting unemployment, I would have believed him. If he shown that he had no money to buy jerseys, shoes, and restaurant meals in the last 2 months that he has been laid off, I would have believed him. I question a guy who says he has no money, but has money in his pockets.
He also has no family. Oh wait he has a brother, who happens to be a special needs child. Oh wait he's very happy for his cousin whose wedding he just attended. I'm shocked how some people are still giving this kid the benefit of the doubt.
