Very entertaining stuff.
I especially love how The Who will reply as a guest, at first talking about himself in the third person and then not realizing he is shilling for himself, start replying in the first person in the same post. Which reveals it was him all the time.
After reading all these threads and the threads before them, I see a lot of compelling evidence that The Who is John Reuben. Some of the evidence might not be backed up by the most solid of evidence, but much of it is backed up by enough evidence to make the weaker arguments stronger and believable.
If The Who was arrested in both Boston and Ann Arbor during the same time frames, that would be get most people to believe the two are likely one and the same as the two locations are geographically distant enough to make a coincidence less likely. Then add in the PM from The Who to Concerned Parent, which I believe was authentic, and the email address given is the same for John Rueben... These two connections, unlikely to be mere coincidence, compel me to believe the The Who and John Reuben are one and the same. Add to this the fact that The Who posts only pro-program messages on a site that is clearly 98% anti-program, and that John Rueben would also be a pro-program, that gives another connection. Not that everyone who posts in favor of the programs are all the same person, but their numbers are very limited even if their posts are not. And considering how often The Who trolls this site, that 2% pro-program could well be mostly him. As he posts as Guest more often than he posts as The Who. And most, of not all pro-program posts are by Guest.
On that same point, The Who doesn't post as himself as often as would seem reasonable for someone with a Fornits account and an easy to remember name. I post exclusively as RMA Survivor. I have found no reason why I would need to post anything anonymously as a Guest, or to have a second screen name for myself except to hide who I am, or to pretend to be someone else. And considering how often The Who posts as someone else, or as Guest, in an effort to make it sound like there are many people arguing his points, in his favor, when in fact it is just him, suggests he is deceitful. And deceit and lying go hand in hand in my opinion.
The Who has admitted to doing damage to property. As an adult in college. So whereas he sends his kid, or kids to a program, it is clear he takes no responsibility for their actions since he laughs off his own.
The Who also doesn't answer direct questions. I read thread after thread and saw him retreat, redirect and change topics, but not answer questions directly. When a question is asked directly, he usually responds with wanting proof rather than simply giving an answer. Or an answer followed by asking what proof brought about the allegations. Most parents who ask their kids a simple and direct question and don't get back a simple and direct answer become very suspicious. "Did you go to school today?" "Why do you ask?" "Because I got a call from someone saying they thought they saw you at the mall during school hours." "How do you know they were telling you the truth? Did they show you video of me at the mall with a time and date stamp? How do you know you can trust them? How do I know you aren't lying to me and just saying I was at the mall to see if I admit I was there so you can punish me?" What parent wouldn't become suspicious? What parents wouldn't just flat out assume the kid was there and is afraid to admit it?
Or another situation. "Where did you get those new shoes? Did you steal them?" "Why would you think that?" (Not an answer) "Because they look expensive, I give you no allowance, you have no source of income and I didn't buy them for you." "Maybe someone gave them to me." (Not an answer) "Who gave them to you?" "I said maybe someone did. (Not an answer) "Did someone give them to you, yes or no?" "Can you prove someone didn't give them to me?" (Wants proof of wrong doing before answering the question)
This is the sort of bloated argument The Who gives to simple and direct questions. The question pertaining to whether he attended a meeting in January 2007 or November/December 2006. (Which by the way, is not a year apart, only 30 to 40 days). The Who wrote in a February 8, 2007 message that he was in Chicago about a month prior. Not precisely a month prior, but about a month. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that A. About a month could be as far back as December 2006 when there is mention made of another similar meeting being held in Chicago. B. That The Who, rather than say he was not there, says he only said a month before. I didn't read where he said he was not there in December, only that it couldn't be proven because he said a month before, which he says would be January 2007, not December 2006. But he didn't say whether he was there or not. But at the same time, has no proof there was a similar meeting being held in January, which is unlikely. Thus, if there was only one meeting--which I believe--and it was held in November/December 2006,-- which I also believe-- then The Who is claiming to have been at a similar event with similar topics a month later when nobody was there. Or-- and this seems more likely-- The only event was in November/December 2006, The Who was there, there was no similar meeting in January 2007 (about a month later) which I believe, and though he expects someone to prove he was there, it seems to me the burden would be on him to prove he was there in January. Otherwise, he has admitted to being there in the same general time frame. But he doesn't admit, or deny being there in November/December. When confronted with a direct accusation, rather than give a simple, direct and honest answer, he changes the subject, redirects and asks for proof. Because he proved he was there by his own admission. He just didn't prove he was there in January and not a month before in November/December. And this is why it is hard, for me at least, to believe him. He just doesn't answer questions.
So for me, there's enough evidence to conclude that The Who and John Reuben are one and the same. This isn't a court of law. I don't need to see FBI records, arrest records or have admins sift through endless posts looking for IP addresses to convince me of things. Sometimes I just need to see enough material to make a convincing argument and then...just see how the accused reacts. If the accused comes off with a convincing response, sounds innocent, I can then ask for more solid proof. If the accused sounds like a kid caught who gives circle-logic arguments and won't look you in the eye and give a clear answer, that says more to me than any evidence, circumstantial or not would. The Who has been caught squirming. He has not been caught replying directly. He comes off as deceitful, manipulating the argument, changing the topic, but not answering. To me this wasn't a question of whether The Who lies. I couldn't care less. It's whether he is John Reuben. And I think he is. And if he takes more than one more thread to answer the questions put forth, then he is just squirming so more. I think the burden is now on him to provide some proof he is not John Reuben.
Oh, and I wish he'd knock off posting as Guest or some other person and stick with one name. It's a lie to pretend to be someone you are not.
