Stolen Valor

Status
Not open for further replies.
bruno said:
This is a disappointing turn of events that should remind everyone aboard that the Latin phrase "Caveat Emptor" holds particularly true in the internet age- but it is just that and folks ought to just let it rest. The forum's business is helping candidates to find information useful in applying to Service Academies, ROTC and Senior Military colleges- the rest is just gravy and all of it should just be a supplement to the prospective Cadets/ Midshipmen's own research . It's an anonymous forum - so don't take what is posted on here and be confused and think it is the Gospel. TPG whoever/ wherever he is, is really not a big deal- just another fraud in the internet age.
Click to expand...

Moderators should consider some of the feedbacks as way to improve this forum. No organization is perfect and I assume this forum does generate some profits and moderators or governing board members can decide how to use that profit.

I am assuming TPG is banned. The forum policy pretty much says moderator can do whatever they want to do, so that was easy.

Why not ban members that lie? Moderators have the full discretion. For All I know I could get banned for being an agitator, but I will have no recourse.

Moderators are quick to step in if discussions evolves into personal attacks. In terms of affecting candidates interested in serving, how much different is it from bad advices or wrong advices given on the forum vs them seeing forum members behaving badly? One of the reasons I participate in this forum is to counter any bad advice.

My worst fear about this forum is that someone bad will use this forum to take advantage of some young folks.
 
I think banning people for lying can be a slippery slope. Cga82 says he liked EAGLE…. I say he lies… because no one likes the Dirty Bird….. who is to say that EAGLE wasn't great?

But lying here and there, however contrary to honorable discourse it may be, is very different from building an entire fictional life. That's beyond "sea stories"….
 
I used Freda's name strictly as an example of the whole point of anonymity- that the forum doen't release names and don't publicize anymore than the person themselves chooses to reveal and it is for good reason. FOIA doesn't have any role to play here.
And as far as taking up for TPG- as a member (I was no longer a moderator) I" took u"p for TPG by suggesting that the way to conduct your investigation was not by doing so publicly but rather by conducting your investigation privately with the moderators and then letting them take action as they felt appropriate - like banning them rather than some unknown person posting numerous harrasing posts on the forum of another member on the forum. The guy was banned because as we have all learned-he clearly was a fraud. Let it go.
 
bruno said:
Let it go.
Click to expand...

As in, 'nothing to see here'? That's the beauty of everyone having differing opinions and allowing for open, respectful discussion. It may be unreasonable to expect a huge change of mind, but there is always potential for change of perspective. On this point we disagree, I think there is something to be gained by allowing discussion around this topic to continue.

bruno said:
... rather than some unknown person posting numerous harrasing posts on the forum of another member on the forum.
Click to expand...

There were only a few posts and as I recall, the posts where respectful challenges based on facts along with supporting references supplied. The threads are locked now but below is an example of one. Do you really characterize this as a harassing post? You followed up with it at the time by saying it was not appropriate but it was patiently explained to you that this method was a second option to one presented via PM (first attempted) in an effort to counter the claims made. This was one of only a few posts. Again, would you really characterize this as a harassing post?

tpg_04-18-april-1983.jpg
 
The administrators do as best they can within their abilities. I agree with LITS we're going down a very slippery slope.
 
Agree. Administrators do the best they can with what they get. My Father was Army Air Corps Bombardier Navigator during WWII. I was a SGT in Vietnam Conflict. Daughter Is graduate of USNA 2011 and now Captain USMC. Son is Merchant Marine Engineer and Commissioned Ensign USNR now sailing out of Singapore. (Commissioned on USS Constitution in Boston Harbor) Is it all true? You decide. It is a slippery slope with what they get that may or not be true on an open forum.
 
Last edited:
LineInTheSand said:
I think banning people for lying can be a slippery slope. Cga82 says he liked EAGLE…. I say he lies… because no one likes the Dirty Bird….. who is to say that EAGLE wasn't great?

But lying here and there, however contrary to honorable discourse it may be, is very different from building an entire fictional life. That's beyond "sea stories"….
Click to expand...

There is no slippery slope as this in a private internet forum where "We [moderator] reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content in our sole discretion" (from the user policy). Suppose I was in an heated discussion with another forum member which I think is very heated but still professional and based on fact, a moderator closes the forum down. There is no way to restart the public discussion. So a moderator using his or her discreation to shutdown a debate is not a slippery slope. I can easily make personal attacks without making it so. I would never say to another poster "you don't know what you are talking about because you are not a SA grad." However, I can say something along the line "There are certain things only SA grads can understand."

Some folks might think what's the big deal on "lying" on this forum. My concern is when folks lie someone could potentially get hurt. Say someone like TPG builds his credential based on forum postings with fabricated facts. A candidate asks this imposter an advice based on his false credentials. This candidate takes the bad advice given byt the imposter.
 
The slippery slope I'm referring to is not the closing down of threads but the automatic banning for a lie. I'm not talking a completely fictional life lie, such as we've seen with tpg. I'm talking about a "little white lie" or the grey areas some of us consider lies while others consider bending the truth.

Now, Don't confuse my angle here. I don't like lying. But I think people will, from time to time, avoid uncomfortable questions, or boost credibility, with a "lie." Sometimes this is direct, and sometimes it's by omission.

In the past PIMA has defended me, stating as a junior officer I was at CGHQ and the Pentagon, which meant I was doing well. I never corrected that. In reality, I was in an O-3 billet at HQ as an O-2 and I did work with the other services at the Pentagon, but it was never because I was "high speed, low drag." All of my impressive classmates were at operation units at that point, many in command of a cutter with a number of people under their command.

I guess good side of have a less than impressive military career is the fact that no one really cares to disprove you! "No WAY LITS got the National Defense Medal and the Coast Guard Achievement Medal….."

HAHA.

My experience was tightly focused on the Coast Guard, with some overlap with other services. My experience spanned 2002-2006 as a cadet and 2006-2011 as an officer. I have SOME idea of how things have changed since 2011, but less than you'd expect. The Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Academy have certainly changed recently. So despite my experience, I assumed tpg was telling the truth. Did I lose anything at the revelation that it was one big lie? No, I didn't personally. Perhaps I'm too trusting too. Maybe I should care more. But when I have little personally invested in something, I tend to be more trusting than if I really needed to extend some due diligence. That said, I can see how tpg's actions would hurt other veterans with like experiences (however, their experiences would be real).

I'm not sure if TASheehan's tone was supposed to be threatening or intimidating, but I question the "it took our team 10-15 minutes to find your identity" comment to bruno to be off-putting. There's no need to take that approach (publicly) with other veterans. You want to check them out? No problem. But don't state that publicly… especially if you're posting anonymously. I'm waiting for the day with a real veterans gets called out in a video for being a fake, the public opinion landslide kicks in against him, and he kills himself… all because someone with a cellphone camera made a mistake.
 
I want to say that the mods here, are the best.

I just have to ask those that think they should have done more background check or monitored TPGs post, you do realize that there are 21,927 members on this site?

I feel it is a sad state of life if we start off with the disbelief of the poster on this forum. Are we suggesting a forum like this should run background checks on all 21,927 members?

I have been here for years, almost from the start. In my mind what I feel about TPG right now is that he needs psychiatric help. He is a mental illness that makes him do what he has done.

Don't get me wrong. I am angry too. He has now taken a great forum and cast a shadow over it.
 
LineInTheSand said:
I'm not sure if TASheehan's tone was supposed to be threatening or intimidating, but I question the "it took our team 10-15 minutes to find your identity" comment to bruno to be off-putting.
Click to expand...

I suspect something got lost in translation. 'bruno' used a specific user name vs commenting in general and I in turn used a specific user name in the same context. Looking to get along here so please don't read anything adversarial in that.

On another topic, the news media has picked up on this story and they want to do a segment on it. I'm looking for people on this forum that are willing to be quoted. i.e. how did it all make you feel when you found out, etc. You don't have to use your real name and I can just use quotes off this forum, even if it is you feeling surprised but felt there was no harm, felt violated and betrayed, etc. Thanks for your willingness to consider. If you are willing to go on camera, we can probably identify an affiliate in your area and get the interview via you going down to your local TV station.

This is the station and an example of their recent work on exposing a fraud involving a veteran obtaining a service dog.
http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/veteran-...each-court-told-to-stay-away-from-non-profit/

Please consider. Any takers?
 
TASheehan said:
Please consider. Any takers?
Click to expand...

NO, I think I am mentally at a place where I can move on!

Seriously, this is a forum to help those seeking to enter the military as an officer. There are real experts here. Focus on them and their knowledge, experience, answers and not the occasional trolls. It certainly helped me.
 
+1 Norwich

TASheehan,
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I would never go on TV/Radio if it meant SAF and TN would be harmed. Hurt TN equates to hurting SAF.

TPG did what he did. He has been gone for many months now. Our goal is assisting kids wanting to defend this great country in the future.

I now have looked up you. Geeze, golly, you joined inn March. 90% of your posts about this aspect.
~ Do you have a kid in HS wanting to attend an SA?
~ Are you a candidate that has any of the following:
~~ Medical
~~ CFA
~~ MOC nomination charge
~~ ROTC scholarship vs SA appointment.

Or are you what I believe:

You only care about nailing TPG and screw SAF if it means we can nail him!
I am willing to eat my skin if you say I am wrong. Just remember I am a WOMAN and never ever saw him (TN) berate/belittle me. Actually he was the opposite.
 
Pima said:
I now have looked up you. Geeze, golly, you joined inn March. 90% of your posts about this aspect.
~ Do you have a kid in HS wanting to attend an SA?
~ Are you a candidate that has any of the following:
~~ Medical
~~ CFA
~~ MOC nomination charge
~~ ROTC scholarship vs SA appointment.
Click to expand...

The answer to all of your questions is 'no'. Then again, I never made any of these claims so there was no misrepresentation on my part. I fit other criteria.

In another post...

Pima said:
I just have to ask those that think they should have done more background check or monitored TPGs post, you do realize that there are 21,927 members on this site?
Click to expand...

I have not seen a suggestion such as this, but my memory is fading as I get older. ;-) It certainly was not my suggestion. That said, I agree. It is unreasonable to expect. To be frank, I have no investment in how you choose to run your forums, so let the consensus rule. It strikes me that it is simply all about risk. How many times will you encounter another person such as this?

I administer several discussion forums. I have the luxury of them being about veterans so I tend to ask upon joining their unit and time they served. Most veterans are proud of their service and willingly volunteer this information. I protect the group(s) from people making false claims. I am usually very liberal about letting them in the groups. When flags start going up, people send me PMs and I tend to keep an eye on the situation. If there is disruption, usually centered around glorious claims of battlefield heroics that are not true, then I get involved. This is apples and oranges to some degree, because I deal with this quite frequently and I suspect that this forum would not. When I pull someone from the group, I talk with them via PM. I say there is too much disruption and I can't defend your presence in the group as people are becoming upset over things that are claimed. I then offer if they can answer a few targeted questions I may change my mind. If they continue to dodge and stumble, I'm honest with them about why I have to keep them out of the group and suggest they monitor remotely without posting.

It's a number's game. I will not defend someone's presence in the group if there is disruption. Too many PMs and behind the scenes discussions. Maybe their problems went beyond misrepresentation of their service, I don't think about it that deeply.

These are some rules of thumb that I use, but I'm certainly not suggesting this is a one size fits all. It is apples and oranges.

However, if a user brings to my attention blatant misrepresentation of one's service and can offer proof or concrete reasons why what that user is saying is false, I consider what is presented to me and I take that very seriously. I get involved at that point. The way I look at it, I have a community of users that I support and they deserve to have confidence in the integrity of the group. I'll concede that this may be different here. You get what you have with anonymous accounts. Advantages, disadvantages. The thing I was trying to get across is even though you are anonymous it should not be an excuse to go beyond who you really are because being anonymous is a false sense of security.
 
fencersmother said:
TASheehan, one does wonder: why are you here?
Click to expand...
One can monitor and read the posts because it is a public forum. One must join to post. More importantly, it is the only way to speak with the owner/admin/moderators. If your question goes deeper than that, all I can say is that I have unfinished business.
 
MemberLG said:
Some folks might think what's the big deal on "lying" on this forum. My concern is when folks lie someone could potentially get hurt. Say someone like TPG builds his credential based on forum postings with fabricated facts. A candidate asks this imposter an advice based on his false credentials. This candidate takes the bad advice given byt the imposter.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with MemberLG.

When a priest-(a very rotten priest-corrupt in every possible way-yet not exposed of his doings until later in life) preforms his duties such as Baptism, Marriage ect.-inaccordance with in the church Doctrine throughout his life until he is discovered; Are all of his Doctrinal Acts he has performed INVALID? Should every Baptism, Marriage, Funeral be overturned? He has no authority to do such Doctrinal Acts anymore since he has been revealed as a corrupt man.

What if an individual claims to be a Dr.(has no degree-no formal training) yet performs a Surgery with great success. No-one the wiser. This same self called Dr. does a surgery with ill effects and hurts someone.

A lie should be punished.
If the lie hurts someone(has to be proven)-the punishment should be judged and levied accordingly.

The "Banned" should be kept and the editing should not be done so as to see why that individual was Banned...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top