RFunaki

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RFunaki

  • Rank
    Dao Bum

Recent Profile Visitors

1,036 profile views
  1. I do not wish to revive this thread, but I do owe an apology the thepath. He is not among the users that I implicated as being the same person/group of people. When he sent me his PM that he had checked my link, I checked my server logs twice after that in the next few hours after that, although I did not take into account that my web host pushes the raw access logs to each shared account the next day (For the previous 24 hour period), I checked it now after reading thepath's post, and can confirm what he has stated above (As well as some other link activity not from his IP, I assume from after he posted the link above some other users were curious). When I originally did not see his link checked, I had reason to believe he wasn't telling the truth, and that was my false assumption. Combine this with the fact that he would not provide his username for reasons I could not understand, and the low history of posts, I was suspicious of him. (Although, trying to understand your situation thepath, I suppose you had no reason to trust me, and that if you provided your username you might have thought that I could access personal information about you that you likely would have submitted during seminar registration. That was not at all my intent, but, at least now at this point I understand where you may have been coming from) To clarify, I see that thepath checked the link 6 times from my server logs, just as the above screen capture says, and also can confirm that your IP is not coming from a proxy, and is legitimate. So, thepath, I sincerely apologize for my incorrect assumption about you. I will remove your name from the title of this post for any future users who might stumble across it, and opted to make my apology here instead of PM for the same reason. Again, my apologies, and I wish you the best. Thanks, - RFunaki
  2. Yes Craig, I plan to do exactly what you metion above. Although I do visit quite infrquently (with the exception of recently), and ordinarily am not very outspoken in forums, I will attempt to make contributions to other areas of the forum when possible on future visits, however. This arguing has become quite pointless and draining, and don't plan on getting tied into it again (I am sure that the TaoBum's members are just as tried of it after all these years, coming from both sides) We will be hopefully putting together a central location for information on David, so that information doesn't get twisted as it passes through each channel and node along the way. To Smile and TaoMeow, David's "new" teacher that Neikung mentions in Korea, is actually one of his past teachers. If you read through the collection of posts, all the way back to the beginning ones from Sean Denty when David was first being discussed on this forum, you will see the references to the said teacher in Korea. This is not a new teacher, David has studied with him in the past. This very example displays the fact that he was not "kicked" out previously, and still studies with many of his teachers. His students know this, and many know from their attendance at seminars and meeting these teachers what the actual situation is. There is much more that can be added to this point, but as I said earlier, it is pointless. I really do not wish to continue to drag out any of this argument any further. For all those who are interested or want more information on the matter, can look for the new public site we will hopefully be putting together in the future. Also to Craig, I am not a lawyer. My attention to detail probably comes from my occupation (primarily computer programmer) anyone that has done programming knows, that problem solving and examining every point of incoming and outgoing information plays a large role. Thanks, - RFunaki
  3. Thank you for your post Pietro, I appreciate your input, and hope that if you have anymore insight into this matter, regardless of whether you are in support of what I say or not, that you continue to share it as a seasoned TBB veteran. I am not familiar with Ronnie, so I could not say if the current doppleganger was him or not. However, the couple of links that I referred to in my previous post in this thread, were related to Little1 and his past imitated identities. He has admitted to, and had shown me proof of, imitating the female user on the Foundation Forum - the same username and avatar during that time period was on this forum. Through this identity, he manipulated and took advantage of people, as seen in the previous posts I linked to. I also speculate that the second post that I linked to from this forum (Where you explain the weird PM's you were getting from users) was also this same user. They were specifically searching for information on David, requested you not to tell anyone about it, and then when you said you would, insulted you and said they would make a new account. From the few posts I've seen on Ronnie, he seems to have little/no interest in David (As Creation pointed out, also), so I have no real reason to believe outside of maybe a common tie to a desire to have multiple user accounts, that they are the same person. As I run the risk of getting banned from this forum (For something I believe was completely harmless and that occurs on every webserver), I would like to make one last summary post on this topic. I believe that most users here now ignore these threads, or at least see the attacks on David for what they are, which is actually a good thing. Mind you, I have no hard feelings for those who disagree with David for reasons based on actual information or their own personal belief (Such as they don't believe people can have these powers, or they don't agree with the fact that he charges money) I also have no intention of arguing with those individuals, and want to make it clear that I do not lump them in with the users that I believe are spreading false rumors. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I respect that. However, crossing the line of personal opinion, to the point of pretending to be multiple users to deceive the public into believing false information, I do take issue with. To summarize: 1. Little1 has proved to me in private message conversation that he imitates other users, has done so on this forum, and that he has a personal vendetta against David. 2. Many of the users bashing David have very few posts (20-30, some of them have considerably less) and they are all concerning David. Despite the fact that when I first brought up the suspicious activity, they insisted they were "not into bashing David", you can see from their previous posts, that this is not the case. Yet another user appeared in this thread just recently, with only 2 posts, in the same manner as many of the other suspected users did. This user then attempted to make threatening claims, and was very insulting and derogatory right off the bat. Please see the previous posts for the full text, but I think this instance in and of itself, should be an alarm. 3. The users are very paranoid about their identity, and IP addresses. I can confirm they were using proxies, (a form of rerouting internet traffic through specific servers to mask your true ISP and location). All the users indicated did not visit the links that I sent to gather these IP addresses. Also, none of the users that I implicated were even interested in proving they were NOT Little1, but only were interested in attacking me and defending the notion that it was "ridiculous", but not provide any information to the contrary of it being true. In my opinion, it can be proved, so why not participate in an excercise to prove it? If you have nothing to hide, what is their to fear? 4. The above users who claim to know David, John Chang, and Wang Liping have provided no proof as such, and refuse to even provide any verifiable information as such. 5. These users are all very obsessed with this topic, and have a very strong desire to continue being involved with it. Little1 confirmed to me in PM that he is just an anonymus identity, and that regardless of what I reveal, he can just create another identity in which he can continue what he is doing. These users also if looking through their past posts, have created and started topics specifically about David, when there was no discussion of David going on, hoping to spur some. It would also seem that these users have been doing this for a span of longer than 2 years (possibly 5 or more, pertaining to other forums) On top of all this, one of the users, despite the fact that he continues to imply David is a fraud, and has argued the point many times, is a paying member of the Foundation forum. This user has posted a screen cap of a saved file from the forum (That I find odd that he saved in the first place), in which he then blacked out his username so he could not be identified. I can only think of two reasons he is hiding his identity, 1: He truly desires this information and does not want to lose access to it (Little1 has already been banned from the forum, and has went to great and very immoral lengths to try to retrieve information regarding the training since) 2: They have paid money simply to get information from this forum, in an effort to discredit David. Both of these scenarios should say more about the situation than anything. 6. Even if ALL of the users are not the same identity, and it is 2 or 3 users pretending to be more users than they are, it is clear to see from their previous posts that they are connected, and share information in an effort to reach a common goal - I'll give two examples: - The WAYN site linked to earlier seems to have been created by one of these users, (Little1), in David's name. This page was never posted on this forum, or the foundation forum prior to this. I only knew of this page from information from Little1 that was conducted in private. However, somehow Gamuret would link to this information as proof to back up one of his arguments. How would he come across this page, unless he went looking specifically for it, was given this information by Little1, or is the same person? - thepath stated that he made a post on the foundation forum, but would not provide details about his username, or when he posted it so I could verify. This post was later proven to have occured by Ken, who for some reason saved it on his hard drive the day it was posted, and posted it for thepath. I am not arguing that this post did not exist given the screen capped proof, but what seems odd to me is that thepath would not give me the information I needed to verify it, it was Ken who did, why? (My personal opinion is that thepath is impersonating the student in which this event occured, but I will not make any assumptions, and will contact the user specified on the forum and the seminar coordinator for the specific seminar in question to get to find out the entire situation) Throughout the history of these users posts, you will see them consistently backing up each others claims, and defending each other either indirectly or directly. Why? I usually in most circumstances would not even try to defend David, and will now take a step back from doing so. However, I felt the situation on this forum was far out of control, and needed at least one voice from the opposing side. Especially considering that anyone on the fence with this topic would completely dismiss David and his teachings because of this, which I find a true shame. At least two years ago, when people were arguing about David's fees and what he charged, there was at least a balanced view of information at that point, that people could deduce an outcome on their own. However, with one to a few users imitating many, pretending to have met him and his masters, and claiming things that are not true, that will potentially stop anyone with a sincere interest from possibly even considering it. I imagined my own situation, and if this would have been going on years ago when I considered training with David, and was still on the fence. I may have not even trained with him if I was provided with such twisted information, and would have never got a chance to see first hand that what is being said is all propaganda. I encourage all users to do thorough research on anything that is claimed to have occured, wether it is about David or any other teacher. Look at both sides to everything, and use both your heart and your logic to get to the truth. This may be my last post, which it may be regardless of whether I am banned or not, getting to the bottom of this is truly draining and time consuming. I have true pity for those who continue to bash David as a primary goal, as it represents a great waste of one's time. As other members have said, if that same amount of time was spent training, it would be put to much better use. I also have noticed that most users don't care or ignore the info that is presented about David now, so using what little time I have to refute these claims is likely a waste of time anyway, which I realize now. Even if I were to have the moderators assistance and prove definitively anything that I have said, these users would just create more identities, and continue what they are doing. I have only one final message to them, most specifically, Little1. Even after all you did, David was still willing to train you. Denying anything to yourself will only make you unhappy. If you truly do not want this information, than leave it be. But it would seem that you do, so then in which case, do not deny your true emotions and attend a seminar. You know yourself that David is very forgiving, and I don't believe he will hold your past actions against you. God bless those here that are sincere and on this path, regardless of your teacher. We are striving for a common goal, and despite how disconnected we are, we have this one thing in common. Hopefully some day in the future, I will bump into some of you on this long and winding road to the divine. Thanks, - Rick Funaki
  4. I didn't ask their identities, I asked for more verifiable information (In one of my posts, I even clearly stated that I wouldn't ask anyone's name). I have already provided my identity (Rick Funaki, this is my real name), and am willing to post proof of my identity to the moderators (Of course I just wouldn't post this information publicly in a public board) How is that ridiculous? Especially considering that none of the users I implicated will even give any clue as to where they received the information they claimed is true, or anything that can be even remotely close to being verified, let alone their identity. So, tell me, how am I being ridiculous? thepath, The reason I asked why you made only the single post (I may need to clarify my previous message, and say 'thread', as in the topic you created), is because there was a single topic which I can no longer view the replies too, and was curious since you said you would make this situation a very public one, why you didn't follow up to post more, but stopped after the initial post was deleted. I am also very curious as to why you didn't just provide your username when I requested. It would have been very easy, and there is nothing negative I can do with that information, so why did Ken have to provide it? Also, I still have not heard back from Ken on why blocked his username in the above screencap post. Regardless, since I run the risk of being banned from this forum, I will post a summary of my thoughts in the topic I started about Little1 and his multiple identities. Thanks, - RFunaki
  5. To answer you first question, I am fully willing to reveal my identity to a/the moderators/owner, as stated in my previous posts. I am willing to give a scanned license, utility bill, etc. The users that attack me are not even willing to give their name, or any other even remotely identifiable information. As I said earlier, I am not speaking FOR David. He likely doesn't even know whats happening in this forum, nor does he likely care. Most all Foundation forum members seem to not visit TTB anymore. Thirdly, I violated no "cyber laws" that you speak of. As I said, this same information that I received is no different then if you visit any other server on the internet. So what is the crime? It is obvious from your attack and "threats" on me what your true intention is. Another person pops up out of the woodwork - with only two posts mind you, this one and a short one in the intro section that says just "Hello". It is becoming more and more apparent what is going on here. Also, scare tactics will not work on me, as I have nothing to hide, nor am I afraid David will "kick my ass" because of anything you will reveal. The real question is, who is this user that just popped out of nowhere claiming to have met John Chang and Wang Liping and David (Seems to be a lot of people claiming this lately, a year or so back there was 1 or 2 people that would even claim they met John Chang, let alone confirmed. Apparently all those people were hiding, and decided to all erupt at once and say they met and know John Chang. All these people ironically are also against David.) - even more than that - why is this user now not only hell bent on discrediting David, but also myself? Please, feel free to reveal your "identity" and explain the story in which David was on your couch begging for training. I don't see why you are trying to use it against me, or hiding it in the first place. Thanks, - RFunaki
  6. Just a quick note/questions as I do not have a lot of time, I will fully expand on this situation later. thepath, I did not contact a moderator because the forum moderator has changed at least 2 times in the past year, depending on when it occurred would change who I contacted. I also am just as capable of searching the forum for myself, so if you would've just provided the username as Ken just did, I would be at the step I am now currently. I will attempt to contact Richard, but he has not made an appearance on the forum in quite some time, but I will do some more investigating to get to the bottom of this. I will see if I can uncover the payment records, I cannot make any promises, but I will see if it is possible for a refund to be made if the above is as you say. I will keep you posted with my posts in this topic. One question though, why just the one post on this? Your last login date was Oct 23, a month and a half after your post referenced above. Did you attempt to make any more posts after that initial one? The image above is certainly from the Foundation Forum, and the message ID of the URL jives out for a post that would have been posted on September 1st, as your date indicates. Ken did not find it currently on the forum however (it appears to have been deleted), he has it saved to his harddrive. The day this post was made, he saved an HTML copy of it to his hard drive, (as is proof by the lack of the tiled image background from the forum, most web browsers don't save this and a direct screen cap at the time would've captured it - also the time displayed in the post refers to "today") - so why did you save it? Also, it appears that you are a paying member of the forum, but blacked our your username and the date from the saved file? Why? Why are you a paying member of the forum, when you believe David to be such a fraud? Thanks, - RFunaki
  7. I will get to the other posts concerning this topic shortly, just wanted to cover this base while I have a few minutes. I believe I am justified in not trusting these people. One of them has already admitted to me via PM that they use several identities on several forums, sent me proof, and have even done so in the past on this forum - which I linked to display to show an example of their prior intentions. These users will keep calling these "conspiracy theories" and call them totally ridiculous, yet there is proof he has done this in the past, and sufficient argument that it is occurring currently. Would you then trust this person? Also, the claim that David changes teachers like gloves may be a bit exaggerated. He is a student of many teachers, but from my understanding he still visits and trains with previous ones when the opportunity arises. With the exception of John Chang, there are still students that go with David to visit the teachers that he learns from. Calling it "changing" teachers implies that he has one current teacher, and the past ones have discarded him.
  8. Thank you for your post Pietro, I appreciate your insight into the past, it sheds some more light on this situation. To answer your above question, Lttile1 first visited the link with his actual IP address. It was just a 404 page, it had no actual information on it. All that is necessary to gather the information is to be directed to the server, I used identifying filenames (tagged them with specific letters depending on who I sent them to to differentiate the requests) to seperate who was who. r.w.smith was next to check the link, he first visited it once, refreshed - then must have realized what was going on, and revisited the page from two additional IP addresses (One that was specifically a proxy IP used for the purpose of being anonymous, as can be checked publically in most cases) The even more interesting part about this is, the rest of the users, excluding Neikung, did not visit the page. (Neikung did, about a day later, also with a proxy IP address). Even without the IP information, I find it peculiar that all the users (about 7 I believe) somehow were suspicious of the activity, and did not visit the link with no apparent forewarning. Why is that? I'm not sure if it happens to all users, but PM's popup after I login for the first time, would this have not happened to these additional users? In which case, they would have known before hand, but r.w.smith's post about it was only after he visited and considerably later. His post was also several topics down at most points, so it seems unlikely that they were to see his post, and then decide not to visit the link. In my opinion, they did not visit the link because they knew what it was from a previous user's link, which would imply that they are either the same person, or work closely together. Also, one of the users also stated they visited the link, but did not. But, judging from the two actual IP addresses I received, I considered the possibility that r.w.smith is a different person from Little1. The identities might be split up between those two users, but I am unsure at this point. What I do find odd about r.w.smith is that he comes from the same location as a user from the past who has been causing trouble for 5+ years, having a history of impersonating identities, and also secret ill intent/agenda. These users have been kicked out of several forums, including the MoPai forum. Andreas forum required a utility bill or some other forum of payment to join it when it opened up, for this reason. Because someone would continually impersonate identities. I originally bundled this all with Little1, because of his exchanges with me via PM (in which he admit using multiple identities, on other forums also) - but given that this situation might span several years, it is entirely possible there is one more person in the group. (In which case, this isn't a childish game, it represents a very odd, potentially serious issue if a group of people will continue this for years) To Smile: I considered the situation you speak of about proxies. However, since they first used their real IP address, many of the situations wouldn't apply. Also, if they were coming from the same gateway/internet cafe even, their user agent strings would be different unless they were using identical operating systems, browsers, and browser framework. Cookies could also be used as a non-instrusive way of identifying unique users given that situation, if it were to occur. To Micheal (thelerner), I understand that many might not care, and that is good actually, then that would mean that the propaganda that he is spreading isn't working. My only issue is the false information he is putting out there. I have continually asked him to back up the information he is spreading, and his only method is to back himself up with another identity that he has created. I am only making this effort to stop this from occuring. If he wouldn't be using these identities to bash David with information that is not backed up, I would not care, the same as you. Thanks, - RFunaki
  9. Why should I ask a previous moderator? I have administrative access, and can see that there was not a post with that title. Nothing is there as you claim, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by requesting the username or seminar to investiage on an even deeper level. Yet, you do not want to provide the simple information that I could use to find it even if it was deleted in the past. Why? I'm even offering to help you to get your money back if there was some type of mixup. Why do you still refuse? As I said before, I did not deny that I sent those links. And I have listed my intent for doing so. This is not sufficient reason to not back up the claims you made. I don't believe you should even be so offended about it, as I said earlier, the only real reason to be concerned is if you are trying to hide something. To tonkosong, thanks for the vague information (Between 97-99 - do you remember a month, or season?) I also find it very interesting that all the information you have about David (such as the dantian artifact), is public information that students have said about him on previous forums, except, twisted and not quite accurate. You claim that even John Chang will say for himself that he is not a student, yet you have not yet proven your connection to John Chang. Let me ask you a very hypothetical question - even if you are who you say you are, and David was not a student and never was - how was he able to visit John Chang so many times, a few times with other students of his own? To MJJBecker, My sincere apologies. I did not mean to drop your name, I will leave you out of any further discussion. Thanks, - RFunaki
  10. Two things that are worth mentioning that can be found right on this forum. Little1 has impresonated other users before, and used it manipulate other users on this forum. He pretended to be the user MichelleD, same as he asmitted to doing on the Foundation Forum (identical usernames used on both forums also (and at the time of being on the foundation forum-identical avatars from what I recall)) and her previous posts can be found here: http://www.thetaobums.com/search.html&...sult_type=posts Also, in context to what I'm referring to, please also see the below post from this forum: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showtopic=3696&hl= Thanks, - RFunaki
  11. How did I attack anyone? If you look at our exchanges, I have not said anything to bash you, or those I suspect are the same person. I have kept the respect of those involved, have not participated in any insults, and have not said anything deragatory about your character. So I take it you are a MoPai student, then? When did this meeting occur? Please understand that your statements are very general, and without a date to verify with those I know who attended with David (depending on which visit this was), anyone can say exactly what your saying, because there is no way to prove it. You seem to remember the situation very well, so if you could please, please provide the approximate date. Also, please back up your statement that David claimed that John Chang, Wang Liping and Jiang were all from the same lineage. You mention that many times in your posts, but in my experience as a student, and to when before I was even a student, I have not seen this occur once. Also, did not find it among past posts. I did find posts where you say this is the case though, but no source of information. I also can refer to many Foundation Forum posts where David specifically states they are not the same lineage. Can you provide a link to this post? I cannot find what you are referring to. Certainly, I remember the discussions when it all came up - but not the above that you mention. I have seen nothing to suggest that any of the students who went to visit and train with Jiang were ever under the misconception that Jiang was from the same lineage as John Chang. Also, Jiang did not perform the bull chi transfer in all those trips - this was something specific to 2 seminars at most out of several (maybe just 1 specifically, I will have to check back with some of the students who attended, I can't recall clearly) However, whether or not the chi bull extraction was a scam for money is to be decided by those who paid it - and from the students who received this, I had not heard any negative comments. Please feel free to post and cite any information you may have to the contrary. You could say that is because they are so brainwashed into accepting it - in which case - even so, fine, that is their decision to spend their money. It is not your authority to deem it a fraud however. I never said I found the above unreasonable. I never denied it either. Truth is I don't know what the situation is. From my point of view, I have met people who swear they experienced and felt Jiang's power, and have no doubts. So on one hand I have my first hand experience of people that I felt were credible, and the other hand there is this article. I guess I would have to go and feel his power myself to say for sure, but currently logic says that there is more to the story, so that is where I stand. However, you'll notice I never refuted the above issue, as there was at least information to back it up. First, it was a student who said David completed the test for level 2 without John Chang as a polar end during the test (I'm not saying it's not true, just giving the entire picture). Sean stated David is a non practicing student because he currently is. All western students from my understanding were no longer welcome, and David currently practices other methods than MoPai. That is my understanding of a "non-practicing student" and I don't see the issue. Anyone that was around during the start of the Foundation Forum, might recall that it initially was a forum started by Andreas who was a MoPai student. He supported David, and was instrumental in bringing him to the public to my understanding. So, why, if he is such a con-artist as you suggest that lies consistently about the MoPai, would Andreas do this? Recalling from previous posts (and after doing a surface search) MJJBecker could at least verify that David was a student at one time. (MJJBecker or anyone that has specific posts, please correct me if I'm wrong - and for the sake of full disclosure, I have not met MJJBecker, I know of him from the original MoPai forum started by Kostas in which he was a moderator) However, MJJBecker did take issue with some of the above users that I mentioned, and questioned their credibility and whether or not they were connected to the MoPai. So how do you prove you are a student of John Changs, and your connection, and that we can believe what you are saying? Without that, what you are saying is just claims. To electric chi magnet: More than one set of students have felt it. Many of the students who attended recent seminars were lucky enough to feel the "zap" from David's Yin-Yang Gong, but I have not trained with him since he achieved it, so I cannot say so for myself. I hope to attend a seminar soon (Not this fall's, hopefully maybe one after that) and hope to experience a demonstration of his power first hand. Thanks, - RFunaki
  12. Craig, I never denied what I did, and these links were on my own server. As I said before, these were just links. This situation was no different then one user sending another user a link - I just collected the information that all web servers log. This information is also not threatening, except in the situation in which you are trying to impersonate someone else - so I honestly don't believe I've done wrong. Yet, I understand that this all started here, so I can understand where you are coming from, and I apologize to all moderators/owner of this forum if this violated The Tao Bum's policy. However, I do not feel I owe an apology to those that I implicated, as of yet. If I am wrong, I will. But the user has already admitted to me in PM's that he uses several identities on other forums, as well as previously on David's. This user also made some very serious claims about David that he has yet to back up. If we can get to the bottom of this with any moderator's assistance, I can leave this forum after a final decision can be made and you can close my account if you like.
  13. What's very funny to me, is the information I gathered from sending you those links. Now, for anyone that is unfamiliar with how this works, I will explain it: Anytime a user visits a website, for every request made to the server, the server logs who requested it. EVERY server does this. (When you visit this forum, the very same thing happens) This information includes IP address, browser, operating system, etc. I did not hack their computer, or access it in any unethical way - all I did was send them a link. Through this link, I saw who requested it from the server logs (it was my server). What's unusual is the behaviour of the users who visited the links. Specifically, the disguising of their IP addresses once they realized that I was on to them (After they realized, mind you). IP address only localizes to your ISP's location, so it will not identify you actual residence. Also, after obtaining someones IP address, it is actually very difficult to do anything with it to compromise someones computer, nearly impossible for any standard computer technician when a system is property updated and secured. IP numbers also change periodically depending on your ISP, so even if someone were to have it now, a day from now it might change. But, IP addresses do identify unique users - UNLESS - they are disguising purposely for this reason. So why disguise it? And also, for anyone users that I incorrectly implicated as the same person, I will most definitely give a formal apology on this forum to when we find out the truth. For those that doubt my intentions, please read through my history of posts. Also, please read the previous posts of the users I mentioned. I have no desire to take this in a negative direction. Please understand that I'm seeing a pattern among these users for more than one reason, and will gladly detail every reason why I believed them to be the same user after we get to the bottom of this (Assuming the moderators agree with my proposal) And also, to clear it up, David never requested I do anything. I haven't even heard from him for months. I have never seen him try to defend himself when people criticize him, likely because he doesn't care. There will always be those that oppose him, especially considering the field that he is in that involves so many controversial topics (Alchemy, "super powers" some would refer to them as, etc) and he has always let it be. I tried to follow his attitude and ignore it, and I most often did ignore it, until I visited this forum after not visitng for some time and started to see things that I believed to be blatantly false from my own first hand experience. Especially considering that this information seems to be stemming from a user who has motive and desire to attack David's credibility because they were rejected. EDIT: For those that may think I'm David Verdesi or Sean Denty, I am willing to provide some proof on who I am for the moderators (Scan of old license, utility bill, etc) to get to the bottom of this. I have nothing to hide. Thanks, - RFunaki
  14. Yes, I do, and I'm telling you your post for which you gave me a post subject title for does not exist. If you were to say that it was deleted, then I could still find your username account - which you refuse to tell me for some unknown reason. Even outside of all that, if you provide which seminar you paid the deposit for, I can follow the trace that way. Anyone of these things will help me identify whether this situation is true or false. As a matter of fact, if you give me which seminar you were trying to attend and your username, I can easily contact the organizer of that particular seminar, and if you did not receive your deposit back, find out why and attempt to get it back for you, as maybe there was a mixup. So please, let me know. I don't see what's so hard about it. As for Neikung's comments, I would really like to post my reply at this moment, but am short on time so will post later. Thanks, - RFunaki
  15. I didn't ask him to reveal his personal identity, I asked for specific details that I could verify as true, which Neikung did not provide. I specifically said that I would not request his name. I also noticed I missed you when sweeping through possible identcal/imitated users. Care to participate an excercise to get to the bottom of this? genmaicha as well - I actually had sent you a PM about this a few days ago, and forgot to include you in my list I posted earlier. For those that think I'm just picking those that disagree with David and trying to lump them together, I can see how it may appear that way. All I can say is that you don't have to believe me now, and that when this all comes to an end if at least two of the users I mentioned are not actually 1 person, then I will make a formal apology.