Richie Kohler accused of looting

[cdiver2]

For legal purposes, the following is a work of fiction based on the author's heavy drug use and personality disorder.

The bad speller isn't Picardi. The people in the marine safety group were always likely suspects for being behind CDNN since it popped up around the same time and somehow CDNN could always get quotes from the MSG even though nobody else was sourcing them. Conversely, the MSG is basically a big CDNN RSS reader.

I merely took writing samples from the real people known to be involved with MSG and compared them to the content under the pseudonyms at CDNN. Tone, style, humor, and even voice match Picardi. At the low level, the HTML contains similar errors and style to his own. The bad speller was Dimond who I removed from the running since his style, humor, voice, eloquence, and such did not match the CDNN material at all.

This gentleman is also a domain squatter with a lot of domains for sale. Its a fairly frowned upon practice in the industry. Here is his selling site:
Available Domain Names

You'll notice he has scuba-411.com for sale which matches the scuba-poll.com dive-vip.com etc format of many of the CDNN sub-site URLs. In what is probably a freudian slip he also is squatting the domain name hoaxesonline.com......

Not proof. And you seemed to have missed the thread starter RK looting..or..not.
Why not start a thread on CDNN, then you can bash all you want without taking away the spot light from the starting post.

 

[deco_martini]

Not proof. And you seemed to have missed the thread starter RK looting..or..not.
Why not start a thread on CDNN, then you can bash all you want without taking away the spot light from the starting post.

This thread is about a CDNN article which makes less credible claims than my own. I don't see how its not relevant to examine their integrity as a source of information. One such way to examine that integrity is to look at who is running the show and writing their articles.

And yes, circumstantial evidence is evidence. If you don't believe that, then go free Hans Reiser from jail.

 

[cdiver2]

AHA! I knew there was a shooter on the grassy knoll! I can now rest easy that this has been proven....[/QUOTE

Notice the title above, the same one as the first post. CDNN reported that Rob Rondeau had made this claim... "Richie Kohler accused of looting".

Now if you know RR did not make this claim ok, otherwise CDNN has reported a truth. If you want to bash CDNN (I know, you have no Axe to grind with them) then start a thread giving FACTS that you can PROVE.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It's interesting that the opinions on fer/agin' collection are so obviously clear based on geography or experience level. Those on the west coast where there are relatively few wrecks and most of their dives are 'pretty fishies" dives, are pretty much agin' collectiing.

What makes you think so?

There are probably 200 identified wrecks in Lake Washington alone ... and easily that many in Puget Sound within easy distance of the metropolitan Seattle area ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[deco_martini]

Notice the title above, the same one as the first post. CDNN reported that Rob Rondeau had made this claim... "Richie Kohler accused of looting".

Now if you know RR did not make this claim ok, otherwise CDNN has reported a truth. If you want to bash CDNN (I know, you have no Axe to grind with them) then start a thread giving FACTS that you can PROVE.

With CDNN's past history of outright fabrication, we don't know if RR really gave that information to CDNN or not. I don't need to prove that RR didn't make that claim. The burden of proof lies on anyone else to prove _that he did_ in light of CDNN's history.

Are you honestly asking me to disprove the claim of an anonymous site whose regular articles are written under pseudonyms and gives no way to contact or verify their authenticity?

Perhaps you would like to me call Santa Claus in order to prove he doesn't exist instead of you proving to me that he does?

 

[cdiver2]

With Conn's past history of outright fabrication, we don't know if RR really gave that information to CNN or not. I don't need to prove that RR didn't make that claim. The burden of proof lies on anyone else to prove _that he did_ in light of Conn's history.

Are you honestly asking me to disprove the claim of an

anonymous

site whose regular articles are written under pseudonyms and gives no way to contact or verify their authenticity?

Perhaps you would like to me call Santa Claus in order to prove he doesn't exist instead of you proving to me that he does?

In light of your accusation, I think the burden is on you to prove the facts IN THIS CASE. You talk about

anonymous

How about filling in your profile. As it stands right now you are doing exactly what you are accusing CDNN of doing.

 

[deco_martini]

In light of your accusation, I think the burden is on you to prove the facts IN THIS CASE. You talk about How about filling in your profile. As it stands right now you are doing exactly what you are accusing CDNN of doing.

2 big differences.
You can talk to me unlike them and ask for more proof. If you are unhappy with the proofs I give, that's fine. I edited the original post to say its "most likely" that person since I think two or more reasonable people could read the same evidences and come to that same conclusion. I don't require that you in particular buy into it.

The other big difference is that I don't claim to be anything other than a guy on a forum. I don't claim to be a reporter or a journalist or speak from any kind of authority. I don't need to back up my authority since I don't claim any.

If you are really concerned about who I am, send me a PM. However, I do not publish any personal information about myself in a bot harvestable format (like in a profile). Its sort of an internet best practice for privacy.

You can stalk my old posts on the forum and figure out what gear I own, who certified me and where, who my best friend is, some of the places I have been to, and even what industry I work in. However, I do not have the information easily bot harvested in my profile.

 

[JeffG]

In light of your accusation, I think the burden is on you to prove the facts IN THIS CASE. You talk about How about filling in your profile. As it stands right now you are doing exactly what you are accusing CDNN of doing.

Who gives a %^&$.

Either believe him or don't.

Scubaboard isn't a court of law.

 

[TheUWPhotographer.com]

Before you reference anything on that website, link to it, or use their RSS feed, ask yourself this... Do you know of any legitimate news organization that uses extortion to get advertisers? Steals from numerous websites? Goes to such great lengths to hide their real identity? None of the info in any of their domain registrations is real. The parent company is a fake too as are the names of all his "reporters" and "staff". Not even the National Enquirer would stoop that low. Knowing what we do know about this guy, I'm surprised to see anyone would even give him the benefit of the doubt. Geez, do your homework!

 

[nadwidny]

With CDNN's past history of outright fabrication, we don't know if RR really gave that information to CDNN or not. I don't need to prove that RR didn't make that claim. The burden of proof lies on anyone else to prove _that he did_ in light of CDNN's history.

Rob Rondeau wrote the article himself. It was a spam that he sent out to folks that have somehow wound up on his email list. I had to find it in my "Trash" bin (which is where anything I get from RR ends up) to compare and it's the same article.

How it got to CDNN I don't know but RR is a master of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement so it doesn't surprise me that it made it's way to that site. Like my dad always said "Crap attracts flies".