Michael -

I'd like to point out that we've mistaken speculation for accusation here. It's an easy-to-cross line, although I must say "we" crossed it rather eagerly.

But I'm glad that my original post kicked off a few decent responses, that's what I had intended it to do.

I never accussed or implied anyone at ASG had a substance abuse problem. I mentioned meth only because I've seen it destroy a number of lives.

And because, as several folks have since pointed out, drug abuse is rife in this industry.

Other things can mess people up, too. Gambling addiction. Eating disorders. Surgical addiction. Sexual addiction.

The list of things that can screw a person's life up is longer than the list of things which are beneficial.

The post that started this whole donnybrook ended with

"So, guys, be careful. Always keep one foot on the dock while climbing into the speedboat..."

If that made even one person think twice, then getting flamed was worth it.

The fact is, there are enough challenges in this business - we don't need to add more.



As far as being an ex-employee of ASG, thankfully I have no ties with them beyond promoting them for a short period of time earlier this year. It was a nice converting program which theoretically should have been profitable.

In one respect, I'm glad it's offline at the moment. Getting email notices of rebills has been a huge, purple boil on my inbox for months.



Regarding kiddie porn, 12 year old boys, and this from post 16999:

---
So, I coming running back here and I post in the Arizona kiddie porn thread, "I'm not making any accusations, and I have no real information, but I just saw Ramp walking down the street with a 12-year-old boy."

That wouldn't be a very fair implication to make concerning you, of course, I wasn't making an implication, I was just thinking out loud.
---

I'd like to clarify here that I do not hang around with 12 year old boys. I did at one time - when I was about that age, too.

That said, thinking out loud is what your statement amounts to, and it really isn't an implication.

Had you actually seen this, you would simply be reporting what you saw.

If this theoretical kid had gone missing shortly after your sighting and you were to add "I didn't see it happen, but I wonder if it was Ramp who dragged him into that alley," it would be speculation.

However, when you make this statement out of the clear blue, lacking any event to tie it to, it can't be considered speculation. It's... something else.



Forgive the cliche... At some point we should probably decide to bury the hatchet, shake hands, come out smiling.

Elections are right around the corner, so we can get our dose of mud-slinging by watchinig campaign coverage. Politicians are much better at name calling, and they get paid for it. We've been doing it for free.


Ciao 4 Now,
Ray