Seems Secker has been getting a bit of press attention. Usual story, he makes nothing from trading, the organisation exists to sell courses to mugs.
m.guardian.co.uk
m.guardian.co.uk
Good to see mainstream press looking into stuff like this...
Seems Secker has been getting a bit of press attention. Usual story, he makes nothing from trading, the organisation exists to sell courses to mugs.
m.guardian.co.uk
How much did you hand over then? That's probably the real story here
They got nothing from me, how much did T2W get from Secker for the partner offer?
How come the Guardian article doesn't "disappear" like the t2w posts and threads?
Peter
They got nothing from me, how much did T2W get from Secker for the partner offer?
How would I know...best you ask them.
So, come on, how much are you into him for, or is it the other way around? Maybe you start all these threads and subsequent bumps to generate traffic for their services....now there's a thought.
How would I know...best you ask them.
Do you think they'd tell me ?
Would it help if I told them you'd suggested it ?
So if someone is destined to be a victim within the system...then who am I to argue
Broadly speaking I agree with the hare. However, while he made clear he wasn't making a value judgement, I don't think it's possible to have this discussion without factoring value judgements into the equation. After all, we all make them, both about ourselves and about others. And that's when it gets complicated because, as the saying goes, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.I'm not making any sort of value judgement on which end of that spectrum is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, or where the boundary lies, but one thing for sure, its not destiny, its personal choice, and you have to take responsibility for that.
That's a rather simplistic argument. Lets just take fraud for example, which is common enough in our game.
At one end of the spectrum, you might have a group of individual's running a particular con. Even amongst this group you have some sort of ethical boundaries, some participants might be comfortable with taking someone's life savings, but not prepared to commit murder to make a profit etc, others may be prepared to do almost anything !.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have individuals who may wish to warn others of the dangers, or offer practical support etc.
In the middle, you have entities who may draw the line at personally committing fraud, but are happy to provide a support to those who do, and again, thats a broad spectrum.
Everyone gets a choice where they'd like to be. Secker has made a choice, Mr Sharky made a choice, you and other members of t2w staff made a choice, and clearly you are all comfortable with the decision you made, and thats cool. But thats not destiny, its a choice.
You could have chosen to take a similar role to pboyles, or a similar role to secker. Only you get to decide where you are most comfortable on that particular spectrum.
I'm not making any sort of value judgement on which end of that spectrum is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable behaviour, or where the boundary lies, but one thing for sure, its not destiny, its personal choice, and you have to take responsibility for that.
Broadly speaking I agree with the hare. However, while he made clear he wasn't making a value judgement, I don't think it's possible to have this discussion without factoring value judgements into the equation. After all, we all make them, both about ourselves and about others. And that's when it gets complicated because, as the saying goes, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Tim.
Seems Secker has been getting a bit of press attention. Usual story, he makes nothing from trading, the organisation exists to sell courses to mugs.
m.guardian.co.uk
Seems Secker has been getting a bit of press attention. Usual story, he makes nothing from trading, the organisation exists to sell courses to mugs.
m.guardian.co.uk