Maybe i'm slow. I'm scratching my head still trying to figure out what the smoking gun here. Can anybody succinctly explain to the stupid ones here such as myself what exactly connects TheWho to this Reuben guy.
I havent seen it yet either. There are lots of words, dates and posts, but like RMA Survivor said very little evidence or links to outside sources. Maybe Concerned Parent will allow his post to be validated. That would be the smoking gun.
I never said "Very little evidence or links to outside sources." But it is usually Guests who post inaccurate quotes. Which was half my beef with The Who. All of these Guests supporting their own arguments. That's why we call them sock puppets.
What I said was that there was enough evidence to convince me. I am an actual RMA survivor. Someone who actually cares about kids and what happens to them since I was one of those kids who got sent away. So whether the OP was trying to convince everyone or not, they convinced me with the evidence provided. I said I believed the PM message posted, alleging that The Who was using John Reuben's email address was authentic. I was convinced. I said I didn't need a site admin pouring over endless posts from the last few years to find the original IP address used to help convince me. I also said I believed that The Who, in his claim that he went to Chicago to attend a meeting, did not attend it in January as he claims, but attended it in November or December a month or two before. I also said I believe The Who lies and is routinely deceitful. Using sock puppet Guest posts to bolster his own arguments.
You see, when people who have recognizable user names comment, posters who are here often, are part of the regular fornits community and that have established themselves as being likely legitimate people...when those people post and make comments, I tend to hold those comments in higher esteem, give them more credibility and respect than I do to Guest posters. I hold their opinions much higher. So when I see a thread with Guest after Guest posting and don't see many real names, I can discard much of what I read as being irrelevant. I read the thread, and the ones before, I have been here long enough to know that The Who is pro-program (Which is fine with me, I have many RMA friends who feel RMA helped them in some way, even if that help was making a lot of great friends and little else) and I know The Who works for the industry. I actually thought he was Lon Woodbury. It's because of the fanaticism. The inability to back down when abuse is obvious. When newspapers and police and state investigators find wrong doing, it is the The Who's and the Guests who all try and dumb it down, redirect the arguments, claim bias or whatever that shows their fanatical zeal. It identifies them as being too biased to be credible.
The actual survivors, the kids who went through these programs, come here to discuss the latest news, discuss the problems these places have, the abuses they know from first-hand experience took place. Some just like being able to stay in touch with some of the amazing friends they made while in these places. And because they are willing, in many cases, to admit that some aspects of their time in these places were enjoyable, they come off as real. That any bias they show pro or con sounds individual, not like they are representing an industry. But The Who always comes off as a cheer leader for the industry. Which is why it was not difficult to believe the "evidence" showing he is. And I put that in quotes because everyone has to decide for themselves what constitutes real and solid evidence to them. But as I also said in my post, this isn't a court case. But we are the jury. A jury of individuals. Each of us can read what has been posted and make are own determinations. My determination is that I have seen enough. Not just in these threads but from reading endless posts by The Who/Whooter and his Guest persona over the years. The PM message, Chicago, the criminal record, the lack of direct answers, the constant misdirecting and redirecting of the argument have all weighed in on the side of guilty. I think The Who and John Reuben are one and the same.
I looked at things from a simple standpoint. I know that people who lie all the time, have endless user names, who post anon all the time and tell a lot of stories tend to get caught up every now and then, forgetting whom they told what to. I even said in my post that The Who will reply as a Guest, forget he is replying as a Guest, start talking in the first person, and thereby reveal WHO he is. It happens. Pretending to be someone else for a short time isn't too hard. But over years, and with so many personalities, you eventually screw up. The Who sent a PM message to a user he thought was really a concerned parent and not just a regular Fornits poster. And he revealed who he really was to that parent. I believe that. John Reuben and Lon Woodbury represent the industry. They are fanatics, in it for the money and they would never be able to conceal that for long. The Who, who is clearly representing the industry when you read his posts over the years, comes off the same way. Therefore it took no stretch of my imagination to believe that a PM message, authenticated or not, coming from The Who and showing a connection to John Reuben was likely authentic. And lastly, as I also said in my post, it goes to the character of the person, the way they react when accused. The Who squirmed. He did not answer directly, he avoided the valid points and changed the topic whenever possible. Just like a kid caught by mommy and daddy. But also, like a criminal in a police interrogation room. If you are innocent, the cops will figure that out soon enough. But if you aren't they figure that out quickly too. People who are innocent react differently than people who are not. Lies are generally easy to expose. Maybe not all lies, but the big ones tend to be. The Who squirmed. He fidgeted in his seat. Sweat poured down his forehead. His answers lacked truthfulness. His answers lacked conviction. His answers and responses all entailed misdirection. He can't reply with a single post as I asked, because lies must be followed by lies. Only truth can stand by itself, needing no lies to prop itself up.
