71Bear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

71, back in the Tedford days you had good sources and original info and were a wonderful resource on the board in sharing info. There are people today who have first hand contacts and knowledge and are sharing it.

I don't understand why that seemingly offends yogi or you or others. I have come to this board for years to glean information from the amazing array of Cal fans. Sure there are some who imply inside info that is not correct but there are key people here who have inside info and are kind enough to share it and have proven their credibility.

As Fiat states there is readily available information in the public domain that call the assertions made into question. I suggest people assess that information themselves.

---

There is a huge difference between sharing information that is obtained via inside contacts and is not restricted by the law and sharing legally protected information. I call into question those who suggest they are in the know because either they are lying (or they have a grossly overinflated sense of who they are) or someone has violated the law (and I do not believe any parties involved in this matter have broken any laws pertaining to confidentiality).

Enough is enough. I think it's time to move on and let the agency have their say. No more from me on this topic........

---

71Bear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

71Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

BGWhy did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Greg doesn't have control over what Facebook allows and doesn't allow.

As for you being some authority on what is truth and what is not, you're not. Stop pretending that you are.

---

You don't know anyone, or anything, you have no connections or influence, and you certainly have no insight. That's not an attack, that is a recap of your posts. And once again you've embarrassed yourself. You're just not smart enough to see it. Of course Greg doesn't have control of what Facebook posts, but he does have control about whether or not this site reposts it. Just like he decided to have control about reposting a text exchange, which of course he has no control over the original exchange.

You're a terrible person. You're rude to everyone. But worse, is you don't even have the minimum intellectual capacity to back it up.

---

Connections and/or influence will do you no good re: this issue. The principals are forbidden by law from discussing the matter with anyone other than those who are conducting the investigation. None of us know "anything".

---

Of course connections do you good in these situations. Informal channels allow us to draw some insight so we don't continue coming to faulty conclusions. Actually, some do know more than others. For some reason some members of this board refuse to accept this basic fact, which would be OK if they didn't lend credibility to conclusions based on absolutely nothing.

---

Oops, sorry. I didn't realize you where part of the investigating agency. My apologies.

---

Please Cal people use your critical reasoning abilities.

The investigating agency is not the sole repository of all information on this subject. After all by definition they are collecting information from the original sources. I can assure you that Let there be light is close to original sources.

For the life of me I don't understand people here burying their head in the sand and not wanting to see information on this subject that is readily available.

As we all agree the official investigation needs to be completed but by its very nature may not release many details. Yet much info is readily available in the public domain from original sources including the accuser but is ignored.

---

The investigating agency is collecting information from original sources who, by law, are forbidden to speak publicly about what they know. Based on information that has been made public (that may or may not be factual), we can all speculate.

My point is simple. This is a fan website. Opinions will always be tinted with shades of blue and gold. I get that. What I don't understand is the need for some people to try and bludgeon the rest of us with their all-knowing attitude, especially those who purport to have been permitted a peek "behind the curtain". That is a load of s... and someone needs to call them on it.

Hell, I don't have a freaking clue what happened. I am trusting the investigating agency to do their job and let the chips fall where they may. If a Cal employee or student is guilty of harassment, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If the accuser has fabricated her story, she should also be held responsible for disrupting the lives of those she accused.

Having said all that, I do want to make it clear that I have a great deal of respect for most of the posters here. While I may disagree with individuals regarding particular issues, I think the vast majority of people attempt to present their opinions in a cogent manner.

---

71, back in the Tedford days you had good sources and original info and were a wonderful resource on the board in sharing info. There are people today who have first hand contacts and knowledge and are sharing it.

I don't understand why that seemingly offends yogi or you or others. I have come to this board for years to glean information from the amazing array of Cal fans. Sure there are some who imply inside info that is not correct but there are key people here who have inside info and are kind enough to share it and have proven their credibility.

As Fiat states there is readily available information in the public domain that call the assertions made into question. I suggest people assess that information themselves.

---

There is a huge difference between sharing information that is obtained via inside contacts and is not restricted by the law and sharing legally protected information. I call into question those who suggest they are in the know because either they are lying (or they have a grossly overinflated sense of who they are) or someone has violated the law (and I do not believe any parties involved in this matter have broken any laws pertaining to confidentiality).

Enough is enough. I think it's time to move on and let the agency have their say. No more from me on this topic........

---

NVBear78 said:

---

BearDown2o15 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

"No one can 100% verify they are from and to her" is not the legal standard to establish an exception to the immunity, and no one has been able to 100% verify that her FB post allegations are true either. So why remove only the content that tends to portray the claimant in a bad light?

---

I didn't see the texts that were posted, but it seems to me that BearGreg's distinction here is not that he can determine the veracity of the claims within the alleged victim's Facebook post itself, but rather he can determine that it is definitely FROM HER, and the posted texts cannot be verified as being from her.

I guess the Instagram post from her secondary account is kind of a grey area.

---

If I can figure out HOW to post a pic, I'll post what I was talking about above.

This is from her IG account not her finsta

---

Can someone please explain how to post a picture or screen capture? I can paste a link but that's where my skills end.

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Of course Greg doesn't have control of what Facebook posts, but he does have control about whether or not this site reposts it.

---

So you think the right move for him would have been to delete the original post about her Facebook post?

---

But, it does raise an ethical dilemma for BI. Why only remove the unsubstantiated claims that portray the claimant in a negative light and not the unsubstantiated claims that portray our university in a negative light? Is it bias? Is it cowardice? Either way, it demonstrates a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to stand on principle.

Have the stones to keep both sides of the story up, or have the integrity to be fair to both sides by removing all of the unsubstantiated claims.

---

71Bear said:

---

The investigating agency is collecting information from original sources who, by law, are forbidden to speak publicly about what they know. Based on information that has been made public (that may or may not be factual), we can all speculate.

My point is simple. This is a fan website. Opinions will always be tinted with shades of blue and gold. I get that. What I don't understand is the need for some people to try and bludgeon the rest of us with their all-knowing attitude, especially those who purport to have been permitted a peek "behind the curtain". That is a load of s... and someone needs to call them on it.

Hell, I don't have a freaking clue what happened. I am trusting the investigating agency to do their job and let the chips fall where they may. If a Cal employee or student is guilty of harassment, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If the accuser has fabricated her story, she should also be held responsible for disrupting the lives of those she accused.

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Of course Greg doesn't have control of what Facebook posts, but he does have control about whether or not this site reposts it.

---

So you think the right move for him would have been to delete the original post about her Facebook post?

---

*Yogi Bear, this is going to go over your head, so just move on; unless, you want to continue to put your intellectual incapacity on flamboyant display.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In addition to the fact that the claimant's FB post strategically alleged almost all of the factual elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the opt-used CA causes of action for harassment, discrimination, failure to remedy, etc., the other clear indication that attorney work product went into her FB post is how strategic she was in naming and not naming people within the Cal football program and school administration. Clearly, her lawyers were concerned about the potential liability for libel that could come from her post. They limited the naming to the people who could arguably called public figures thereby only naming people they believe would have to carry the shifted burden of proof to establish falsity.

---

---

If she has lawyers, i strongly doubt that they were happy about her going public.

Quote:

---

But, it does raise an ethical dilemma for BI. Why only remove the unsubstantiated claims that portray the claimant in a negative light and not the unsubstantiated claims that portray our university in a negative light? Is it bias? Is it cowardice? Either way, it demonstrates a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to stand on principle.

Have the stones to keep both sides of the story up, or have the integrity to be fair to both sides by removing all of the unsubstantiated claims.

---

I'll let Greg answer that part if he chooses to do so. Suffice it to say I don't think you understand his thought process one iota.

BTW, since you think using your occupation somehow makes you more intelligent than me, I'll give you a scenario. Don't worry if about not responding - I expect this to go over your head.

A mid-sized network with three routers and connections to the networks 192.168.1.0, 192.168.2.0, and 192.168.3.0. The gigabit interfaces linking those routers to the core switches of that network are set to passive mode. The three routers are linked by their serial interfaces 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 respectively.

Would it better to use EIGRP or OSPF on this network if those were your two choices of routing protocols?
Would you use auto-summarization on the routers or not and if so, why?
What percentage of the bandwidth of the serial interfaces would you set for the interfaces to exchange routing information?
Would you use service password-encryption or not in your configuration and if so, why?

And in parting

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Quote:

---

Cal AD and the whole school needs to hire a team to cut this crap out at the start. Education and training for all staffers, no exception. Clear and specific examples of bad behavior and harassment. Signed letter that you took the training and updated training, and put in your employment contract. Why? This isn't the first time this has happened and the past few were high level, deans, etc.

---

Quote:

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Great, so let's not talk about it all, since if you (and others) are saying, no one has information, then there's nothing to contribute, other than confusion. I in fact suggested that early up, that given the well documented situations with Jussie Smollett and Nathan Philips, we should all withhold judgement.

But we have others, as represented by Another Bear, who go all in:

Quote:

---

Cal AD and the whole school needs to hire a team to cut this crap out at the start. Education and training for all staffers, no exception. Clear and specific examples of bad behavior and harassment. Signed letter that you took the training and updated training, and put in your employment contract. Why? This isn't the first time this has happened and the past few were high level, deans, etc.

---

They see the Facebook post and buy into.

Then we have folks when presented with information from current students like oskioski (full disclosure, friend of mine and often stays with me) such as the instagram shot he posted, those people immediately attack him. LIke when Fyght posted this

Quote:

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

Anyway oskiosksi had legit information. Was sitting next to me on the couch, passed me his computer and asked me if he should post it, I said sure. The mods took it down. Having been a party to blatantly false claims myself, for which I suffered but the person making the claims didn't (and in fact was treated with kid gloves) I definitely have a bias. but I've seen enough of it societally to know I wasn't a lone example. But Oaktown, I'll stop.

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

At the same time the finsta post was left up. Once you choose to censor it puts YOU in the position of power. You should be careful.

BTW, I agree with you taking it down. I suspect it is something you did not want on your site, but be quite cautious with censorship

---

There is no such thing as censorship on a private site.

---

Of course there is censorship on a private site. BearGreg just did it. I think what you mean is that there is no 1st amendment right to free speech afforded on a private site.

You also demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of what hearsay is in another post. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement proffered for the truth of the matter asserted. It's all hearsay at this point, including the claimant's original FB post.

You continue to embarrass yourself with an ignorance that an 11th grade education should have cured.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

As for OskiOski, you have a reasonable argument, but I think it is significantly different. He is an anonymous poster with no reputation on the line. The content on its face appeared questionable. He gave no explanation of the content's authenticity or how he knew it was authentic. He posted it among a bunch of stupid posts about her clothes and her financial status. And quite frankly the post looked like a myriad of vicious memes we've seen in other cases. Was he judged without all the facts? Yes. Was his reputation damaged? No. Was there time for explanation and the ability to correct the record? Yes. And quite honestly, I think he should have known exactly what posting that would look like and gotten ahead of the issue by saying up front that it wasn't fake and how he knew that. Honestly, the people that ripped him did him a favor by eliciting an explanation because without follow up a lot of people would have quietly thought he was a total dumbass. It was pretty close to equivalent of sitting next to a Nigerian prince who just needs a bank account to transfer money into, having evidence of his legitimacy, and posting the message without providing the evidence.

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

I understand the distinction that you are making. I appreciate your well thought, well-reasoned response. However, in the court of law (not saying this is a court of law, but some have been using words like evidence and hearsay), the authenticity of a writing and the veracity of the contents there in are up to the trier of fact to decide. Authenticity is the threshold question, but people aren't even going to be able to form an opinion about it for themselves because the publisher has decided that it's inauthentic. And, from what I've seen thus far, nothing that people are attributing to the claimant favorable or unfavorable has been authenticated to 100% certainty.

---

sycasey said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

I understand the distinction that you are making. I appreciate your well thought, well-reasoned response. However, in the court of law (not saying this is a court of law, but some have been using words like evidence and hearsay), the authenticity of a writing and the veracity of the contents there in are up to the trier of fact to decide. Authenticity is the threshold question, but people aren't even going to be able to form an opinion about it for themselves because the publisher has decided that it's inauthentic. And, from what I've seen thus far, nothing that people are attributing to the claimant favorable or unfavorable has been authenticated to 100% certainty.

---

Just a thought, but maybe BearGreg is not basing his decisions on what would be admitted in a court of law (where both the defense and the prosecution would have an opportunity to present supporting evidence for their claims), but rather on other principles. He's allowed things that can be directly attributed to the people in question (the woman's public Facebook and Instagram posts, the public statements from Knowlton and Wilcox) and has chosen to not allow things that are not verifiable as coming directly from those parties. That seems consistent to me. You might not agree with his standard, but it seems clear, and as this is a privately-owned site they aren't really required to abide by anything other than their own stated standards.

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Interesting, it looks like her father popped into the "University of California, Berkeley Alumni in Los Angeles" Facebook group. A quick LinkedIn search shows that he's a CMO and has been an exec for the past 20 years. Wonder how that fits into the whole poor college student persona...

And the line moves yet again.

---

txwharfrat said:

---

Holy Crap! I spend one night in Austin for a Bob Weor & Wolf Bros concert and I get back in BI when I get home today and ...

More importantly, how was the show?

Yikes!

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Of course Greg doesn't have control of what Facebook posts, but he does have control about whether or not this site reposts it.

---

So you think the right move for him would have been to delete the original post about her Facebook post?

---

*Yogi Bear, this is going to go over your head, so just move on; unless, you want to continue to put your intellectual incapacity on flamboyant display.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In addition to the fact that the claimant's FB post strategically alleged almost all of the factual elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the opt-used CA causes of action for harassment, discrimination, failure to remedy, etc., the other clear indication that attorney work product went into her FB post is how strategic she was in naming and not naming people within the Cal football program and school administration. Clearly, her lawyers were concerned about the potential liability for libel that could come from her post. They limited the naming to the people who could arguably called public figures thereby only naming people they believe would have to carry the shifted burden of proof to establish falsity.

---

---

If she has lawyers, i strongly doubt that they were happy about her going public.

Quote:

---

But, it does raise an ethical dilemma for BI. Why only remove the unsubstantiated claims that portray the claimant in a negative light and not the unsubstantiated claims that portray our university in a negative light? Is it bias? Is it cowardice? Either way, it demonstrates a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to stand on principle.

Have the stones to keep both sides of the story up, or have the integrity to be fair to both sides by removing all of the unsubstantiated claims.

---

I'll let Greg answer that part if he chooses to do so. Suffice it to say I don't think you understand his thought process one iota.

BTW, since you think using your occupation somehow makes you more intelligent than me, I'll give you a scenario. Don't worry if about not responding - I expect this to go over your head.

A mid-sized network with three routers and connections to the networks 192.168.1.0, 192.168.2.0, and 192.168.3.0. The gigabit interfaces linking those routers to the core switches of that network are set to passive mode. The three routers are linked by their serial interfaces 0/0/0 and 0/0/1 respectively.

Would it better to use EIGRP or OSPF on this network if those were your two choices of routing protocols?
Would you use auto-summarization on the routers or not and if so, why?
What percentage of the bandwidth of the serial interfaces would you set for the interfaces to exchange routing information?
Would you use service password-encryption or not in your configuration and if so, why?

And in parting

---

trick question yogi! OSPF does not support auto summarization....

---

Sebastabear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Great, so let's not talk about it all, since if you (and others) are saying, no one has information, then there's nothing to contribute, other than confusion. I in fact suggested that early up, that given the well documented situations with Jussie Smollett and Nathan Philips, we should all withhold judgement.

But we have others, as represented by Another Bear, who go all in:

Quote:

---

Cal AD and the whole school needs to hire a team to cut this crap out at the start. Education and training for all staffers, no exception. Clear and specific examples of bad behavior and harassment. Signed letter that you took the training and updated training, and put in your employment contract. Why? This isn't the first time this has happened and the past few were high level, deans, etc.

---

They see the Facebook post and buy into.

Then we have folks when presented with information from current students like oskioski (full disclosure, friend of mine and often stays with me) such as the instagram shot he posted, those people immediately attack him. LIke when Fyght posted this

Quote:

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

Anyway oskiosksi had legit information. Was sitting next to me on the couch, passed me his computer and asked me if he should post it, I said sure. The mods took it down. Having been a party to blatantly false claims myself, for which I suffered but the person making the claims didn't (and in fact was treated with kid gloves) I definitely have a bias. but I've seen enough of it societally to know I wasn't a lone example. But Oaktown, I'll stop.

---

He posted it among a bunch of stupid posts about her clothes and her financial status.....

---

If she had said several times that the reason this happened to her was because she was short and she had then posted dozens of pictures showing she was 6'2" would this not be worthy of commentary? She made her wealth and tough circumstances the linchpin of her story explaining her actions and how others treated her. It's demonstrably BS.

But to say it, it's a weird kind of BS because it isn't needed to prove her case. Rich women can be sexually haraassed as can poor women as can short women as can tall women. None of it has anything to do with the underlying allegations (which again are horrifying and if even remotely true need to be swiftly dealt with). But it does go to her veracity and perceptions. When she decided to try this in the court of public opinion and in the NY Post those fairly come in to question.

---

But it is relevant to the circumstances to her allegation because she cites the importance of this job and its income as an explanation for her actions. If her motivation is undercut then it would cast some doubt as to the entire story.

So no, it wasn't needed to prove her case, but by mentioning it and using it to highlight the threat of her employment and how it would affect her it became part of her case IMO.

---

I don't disagree. But i still think it's weird because if she'd merely said "I went to his room/office because I didn't want to lose my job" that would have been the end of the story. She doesn't need to prove financial need. Open and shut sexual harassment. But she adds her financial hardship of losing her $600 a month job which isn't just untrue but comically so. Has to call in to question what else isn't true about her story.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Great, so let's not talk about it all, since if you (and others) are saying, no one has information, then there's nothing to contribute, other than confusion. I in fact suggested that early up, that given the well documented situations with Jussie Smollett and Nathan Philips, we should all withhold judgement.

But we have others, as represented by Another Bear, who go all in:

Quote:

---

Cal AD and the whole school needs to hire a team to cut this crap out at the start. Education and training for all staffers, no exception. Clear and specific examples of bad behavior and harassment. Signed letter that you took the training and updated training, and put in your employment contract. Why? This isn't the first time this has happened and the past few were high level, deans, etc.

---

They see the Facebook post and buy into.

Then we have folks when presented with information from current students like oskioski (full disclosure, friend of mine and often stays with me) such as the instagram shot he posted, those people immediately attack him. LIke when Fyght posted this

Quote:

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

Anyway oskiosksi had legit information. Was sitting next to me on the couch, passed me his computer and asked me if he should post it, I said sure. The mods took it down. Having been a party to blatantly false claims myself, for which I suffered but the person making the claims didn't (and in fact was treated with kid gloves) I definitely have a bias. but I've seen enough of it societally to know I wasn't a lone example. But Oaktown, I'll stop.

---

He posted it among a bunch of stupid posts about her clothes and her financial status.....

---

If she had said several times that the reason this happened to her was because she was short and she had then posted dozens of pictures showing she was 6'2" would this not be worthy of commentary? She made her wealth and tough circumstances the linchpin of her story explaining her actions and how others treated her. It's demonstrably BS.

But to say it, it's a weird kind of BS because it isn't needed to prove her case. Rich women can be sexually haraassed as can poor women as can short women as can tall women. None of it has anything to do with the underlying allegations (which again are horrifying and if even remotely true need to be swiftly dealt with). But it does go to her veracity and perceptions. When she decided to try this in the court of public opinion and in the NY Post those fairly come in to question.

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Seems likely to me it was her legal team that directed her to delete the FB post. That post didn't help her at all. It does not look like it was ghost written by a legal team, as some have suggested. Well, maybe if her lawyer is Cousin Vinny.

---

juarezbear said:

---

txwharfrat said:

---

Holy Crap! I spend one night in Austin for a Bob Weor & Wolf Bros concert and I get back in BI when I get home today and ...

More importantly, how was the show?

Yikes!

---

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

My thoughts Oak. I generally am fully in lock-step with your views but am going to take exception here:

1. It's not really important to her account. Never said it was. In fact I said the opposite. She didn't need to talk about her financial status as it had nothing to do with her complaint but she did. Several times. So again, this goes to her veracity, nothing more.

2. You don't know she is lying. What if she says her parents take her on vacation but expect her to support herself? An investigation can get to the bottom of this. Oak, you would have a field day with this if you were on the other side of the argument. You often, very correctly, point out what people clearly mean as opposed to a twisted interpretation of their words. Look at her statements.

"I am a financial aid student, I am here to make money not to be some object to look at."

" I couldn't let my mom down, if I got fired she wouldn't be able to support me, so I said I was leaving for the night. "

This isn't someone saying mom and dad make me pay for my own phone plan. This is someone clearly implying she was poor and financially trapped. It's just not even remotely true.

3. It is relevant if she lied. Which is a question for an investigation. We agree.

4. That wasn't my point. To find that information creepy guys who are hoping to disprove her account have to sift through her social media account. I'm sorry but that was really pathetic behavior and THAT is what people outside Cal are going to focus on. Not that she said she was poor and she wears fancy clothes on exotic vacations. If any of the publications that love to roast Cal or the abuses of big time football get ahold of this thread, they will Have a field day with it. That is why you leave it to Cal to manage. I guess I disagree with this on two levels.

First no one has talked about her fancy clothes at all, although maybe I missed that in the 500 posts. But more fundamentally, this isn't someone who has a nice pair of shoes or a bag and is on financial aid. I'm sure that happens all of the time. This is someone whose travel itinerary reads like she's a Bond villain. I mean it's a joke. Cannes, Mykonos, Santorini, the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Shanghai, X'ian, Barcelona, Istanbul, etc, etc. I mean it would be ludicrous enough in the abstract but she's got a half dozen places in here that are almost cliched examples of places only accessible to the rich and famous. Let's go back to that "I'm a financial aid student . . ." statement.

But to your broader point that this is a bad look for Cal, well I certainly get where you are coming from, but I think we're a pretty long way from Cal fans writing FAITH on the hoods of their cars. I really think this may be a generational difference that you (and I) aren't fully grasping. This isn't a case of some Cal sleuths sifting through her trash or hacking her computer. This isn't hidden. This is her very public persona. In a very real way, her Instagram is who she is and what she presents to the world. And more fundamentally it's one of the places she chose to attack Cal and take shots at the University. It's more than fair game. It's squarely in the public record and she herself made it part of the story. What's on there needs to be evaluated.

---

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

My thoughts Oak. I generally am fully in lock-step with your views but am going to take exception here:

1. It's not really important to her account. Never said it was. In fact I said the opposite. She didn't need to talk about her financial status as it had nothing to do with her complaint but she did. Several times. So again, this goes to her veracity, nothing more.

2. You don't know she is lying. What if she says her parents take her on vacation but expect her to support herself? An investigation can get to the bottom of this. Oak, you would have a field day with this if you were on the other side of the argument. You often, very correctly, point out what people clearly mean as opposed to a twisted interpretation of their words. Look at her statements.

"I am a financial aid student, I am here to make money not to be some object to look at."

" I couldn't let my mom down, if I got fired she wouldn't be able to support me, so I said I was leaving for the night. "

This isn't someone saying mom and dad make me pay for my own phone plan. This is someone clearly implying she was poor and financially trapped. It's just not even remotely true.

3. It is relevant if she lied. Which is a question for an investigation. We agree.

4. That wasn't my point. To find that information creepy guys who are hoping to disprove her account have to sift through her social media account. I'm sorry but that was really pathetic behavior and THAT is what people outside Cal are going to focus on. Not that she said she was poor and she wears fancy clothes on exotic vacations. If any of the publications that love to roast Cal or the abuses of big time football get ahold of this thread, they will Have a field day with it. That is why you leave it to Cal to manage. I guess I disagree with this on two levels.

First no one has talked about her fancy clothes at all, although maybe I missed that in the 500 posts. But more fundamentally, this isn't someone who has a nice pair of shoes or a bag and is on financial aid. I'm sure that happens all of the time. This is someone whose travel itinerary reads like she's a Bond villain. I mean it's a joke. Cannes, Mykonos, Santorini, the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Shanghai, X'ian, Barcelona, Istanbul, etc, etc. I mean it would be ludicrous enough in the abstract but she's got a half dozen places in here that are almost cliched examples of places only accessible to the rich and famous. Let's go back to that "I'm a financial aid student . . ." statement.

But to your broader point that this is a bad look for Cal, well I certainly get where you are coming from, but I think we're a pretty long way from Cal fans writing FAITH on the hoods of their cars. I really think this may be a generational difference that you (and I) aren't fully grasping. This isn't a case of some Cal sleuths sifting through her trash or hacking her computer. This isn't hidden. This is her very public persona. In a very real way, her Instagram is who she is and what she presents to the world. And more fundamentally it's one of the places she chose to attack Cal and take shots at the University. It's more than fair game. It's squarely in the public record and she herself made it part of the story. What's on there needs to be evaluated.

---

---

Bingo, perfectly stated.

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

My thoughts Oak. I generally am fully in lock-step with your views but am going to take exception here:

1. It's not really important to her account. Never said it was. In fact I said the opposite. She didn't need to talk about her financial status as it had nothing to do with her complaint but she did. Several times. So again, this goes to her veracity, nothing more.

2. You don't know she is lying. What if she says her parents take her on vacation but expect her to support herself? An investigation can get to the bottom of this. Oak, you would have a field day with this if you were on the other side of the argument. You often, very correctly, point out what people clearly mean as opposed to a twisted interpretation of their words. Look at her statements.

"I am a financial aid student, I am here to make money not to be some object to look at."

" I couldn't let my mom down, if I got fired she wouldn't be able to support me, so I said I was leaving for the night. "

This isn't someone saying mom and dad make me pay for my own phone plan. This is someone clearly implying she was poor and financially trapped. It's just not even remotely true.

3. It is relevant if she lied. Which is a question for an investigation. We agree.

4. That wasn't my point. To find that information creepy guys who are hoping to disprove her account have to sift through her social media account. I'm sorry but that was really pathetic behavior and THAT is what people outside Cal are going to focus on. Not that she said she was poor and she wears fancy clothes on exotic vacations. If any of the publications that love to roast Cal or the abuses of big time football get ahold of this thread, they will Have a field day with it. That is why you leave it to Cal to manage. I guess I disagree with this on two levels.

First no one has talked about her fancy clothes at all, although maybe I missed that in the 500 posts. But more fundamentally, this isn't someone who has a nice pair of shoes or a bag and is on financial aid. I'm sure that happens all of the time. This is someone whose travel itinerary reads like she's a Bond villain. I mean it's a joke. Cannes, Mykonos, Santorini, the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Shanghai, X'ian, Barcelona, Istanbul, etc, etc. I mean it would be ludicrous enough in the abstract but she's got a half dozen places in here that are almost cliched examples of places only accessible to the rich and famous. Let's go back to that "I'm a financial aid student . . ." statement.

But to your broader point that this is a bad look for Cal, well I certainly get where you are coming from, but I think we're a pretty long way from Cal fans writing FAITH on the hoods of their cars. I really think this may be a generational difference that you (and I) aren't fully grasping. This isn't a case of some Cal sleuths sifting through her trash or hacking her computer. This isn't hidden. This is her very public persona. In a very real way, her Instagram is who she is and what she presents to the world. And more fundamentally it's one of the places she chose to attack Cal and take shots at the University. It's more than fair game. It's squarely in the public record and she herself made it part of the story. What's on there needs to be evaluated.

---

---

Bingo, perfectly stated.

---

+1 boy, it's a tough ask to compare the Amber case to this and in doing so is in and of itself a discredit...so I'm not sure why we go there? Why escalate? I thought this thread was fine at 444 messages notwithstanding the fact that number is really bad luck in the Chinese community.

---