"Certain people" had it out for him and he "knew exactly who they were" and more or less said they would "get theirs in the end." He did admit to the "underfunding" and was very apologetic and reassuring that it was all but cleared up. I had no idea he had lined his pockets with nearly $200k either. Of course he downplayed everything as I figured he would.
I traded a bunch of emails with him after I was banned from AV123, and there were plenty of promises of progress on the raffles. Friday has the distinction of being the first time I saw any proof of
actual progress, though.
What I'm wondering, does anyone know who these "certain people" are/were and how he could possibly try and flip this and play the victim? I'm sure he was referring to Chu and perhaps The Ninja, but what the heck does he mean by implying "they will get theirs"? Is he trying to pull the libel card or claim lost revenue because they were speaking the truth? I don't see what he could possibly stand to gain by trying to deflect the attention off himself, where the focus belongs.
I remarked on this in the past - one of Mark's favored techniques when dealing with inconvenient posts from inconvenient people was to hint at lies created with devious intent. He'd suggest that the IP address logs revealed
amazing and very
disturbing things about unnamed posters. Whether he meant that they were accounts run by competitors trying to discredit him or perhaps an army of Warsaw Pact techno-warriors bent on re-starting the Cold War was never specified, and the individual posters involved were never identified. There was even some of that "certain people" and "they will get theirs" language in his final post in my (now long deleted) "Open for Interpretation" thread at AV123. It sounded menacing and ominous, didn't it? I think that was all a smoke screen. If he didn't say something like that, it would suggest that the full magnitude of the problem was as bad as it was being portrayed (or even worse, which seems to have been the case). And since it was all a fabrication, it was best to be very vague. By making that threatening comment, it suggested that somebody else was the real bad guy and he was still a good guy - guilty of a little mistake in judgment, but determined to make it right and avenge himself against the true villain. And, frankly, it worked for him for a long time.
In our communications, Mark was quick to find ways to speak ill of others. I never tried to get information from him about The Ninja - I didn't have any interest in what lies he might offer there - but I did ask about Ruben. From his disjointed and somewhat varied series of responses, I estimate that there's about 10% accuracy and 90% manipulation or deception in his answers.
My hats off to Chu and everyone else (including this site and the mods) who helped make this happen! I hope for swift justice, whatever that may be.
There was a lot that had to go on in the background - among members of various forums, with charities, with the lead police detective, and with the other authorities. It's disgusting that the effort had to be made, but I'm still glad to see that all the effort is paying off.
