The Flip Around Scam

A husband goes to the bathroom and from the living room, hears a cry of anger from his wife.  Oops, he thinks, he forgot to sign out of his email...

An old pro at adultery, he doesn't rush, but saunters back in with a pretend concern of "What is it, honey?"

She retorts in righteous anger, "Don't 'honey' me, I saw the email from Juanita at work!  Working late, huh?  Why is she thanking you for yesterday evening?  You were 'wonderful', huh?!"

Now the old pro has a couple of options.  He could do the "blame the victim" thing, and speak of her not being up for as much marital relations as they had 20 years ago.  Or that her figure never re-bounded after the third child.  But that's pretty darn risky, for obvious reasons.

He may drag that in later, as a supplement, but really, better if she can be made to think of those on her own, without him laying himself open to a charge of rudeness and ingratitude by saying them himself.

And as an old pro, he knows that "blaming the victim" not only depends on the person actually feeling guilty for something they did in the past, but it would also be a tacit confession that he did do it, just with reasons.  And why would he admit that right out of the gate, when he may yet win?

Is there a way he can not have to make the admission?  And not have to rely on her feeling guilt for something that is normal and natural?

Sure!

It's called the Flip Around!

That's where you shift the conversation immediately from your action, to their reaction.  Done right, their reaction becomes the "action" under discussion, and your own tawdry action is left behind, perhaps even, if done right, never to be addressed again!

Watch!

Wifey:  "...you were 'wonderful', huh?!"

Old Pro:  "I'm at an utter loss here, as to how you could do this to me."  *shakes head sadly*

Wifey:  "What?!  What are you talking about!?"

Old Pro:  "How many years have we been married?  But this is the level of trust we have - or don't have - that my emails, my personal emails are fair game to you?"

Wifey:  "You're the one who left it open, so why don't you tell me about this 'wonderful' time you had with her?"

Old Pro:  *pretending to squeeze back a tear with his finger*  "I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time hearing that your snooping is my fault.  It's like you're blaming the victim for your actions, like it's my fault you read my personal emails!  This makes me question things between us now.  It makes me question things a lot."

Wifey:  "What?  How does that even matter!?  How long have you been seeing her?"

Old Pro:  *pauses to build anticipation at a supposedly honest answer*  "Listen.  We've been married a long time, and I love you very much, so I'm not just going to rush to judgment on what you've just done here or what it's cost our relationship.  Even though I notice you seem fast enough to jump to conclusions with me.  I'm going to grab some alone time, maybe watch the game, try and cool off, as this bothers me more than I think you know.  There'll be time enough to talk everything out later, including your silly suspicions."

Okay, let's review that.

First, he didn't make the mistake of denying out right and at once, because after all, he doesn't know how many of those emails she saw, or if she found the pics.  As it happens, she only found the one left open, and that was not too explicit, so he knows now that she knows very little for sure.

Second, in his initial non-denial, he did immediately go on the attack.  Remember in Proverbs, "the guilty flee when no man pursue, but the righteous are as bold as lions".  Thus the lesson - the dark and horrible lesson - that the Flip Around scammer learns is, "Do not flee from the accusation, or you'll look guilty, rather boldly attack as a lion so you'll look righteous!"

Thirdly, the wifey falls into the trap by doing a bit of understandable "victim blaming".  Technically speaking, she was not to look in his email, but instead of giving a perfect response, her emotional state caused her react to his accusation defensively, thus making her look guilty - and feel guilty.  If his own accusation planted a bit of guilty feeling in her, her very act of defending against that spurious allegation re-enforced in herself a guilty feeling she never really should have.

Fourthly, since the Old Pro tricked her into a poor defense, and one that made herself feel "defensive", he then ably followed it up with a pretense of a sad emotional state, which she notes and will wonder of later, and also named her sad - and actually justified attempt at - victim blaming, so to further re-enforce a sense in her that maybe she really is as guilty as she is increasingly starting to feel.

Fifthly, her "What? How does that even matter?" is weak, as on some level, she is actually asking him to explain that to her as if she needs real correction and instruction on this matter from him.  Only after that, does she - secondarily - ask the real question of how long he's been seeing her.  Which sadly confesses that she knows not.

Sixthly, the long pause as if in emotional shock over another's wrong doing not only helps emphasize how wrong the wifey was, but it gives the flip arounder time to come up with a great non-answer.  That non-answer is nothing more than a threat.  He is literally - if only subtly - implying that the marriage itself may be over, or at least gravely damaged, by HER actions in violating his privacy.

He still also persists in not denying or defending, making her start to doubt there is anything for him to deny or defend.  He's also offering her an "out".  That possibly, after he cools off, there may be hope in a future conversation in which she could convince him that she meant no harm in looking at that email.

See?  Now she's almost eager to brush off the suspected affair, just if it will get him off her back about her violating his privacy.  Why?  Because she values the peace and stability of the marriage and her place in it, above all.  It's her love and reliance upon that stable and comfortable relationship that is the very thing that makes the flip around work so well.

What she had read made her feel that the marriage was in doubt, due to HIS actions.  But he has done the "flip around", so now she feels her marriage is in doubt due to HER actions in violating his privacy, but she is hoping now that he'll just cool off and not bring this up again.  Because while she really doesn't know "for sure, for sure" about his cheating, she knows she's stone cold busted on the privacy violation.

Now her only goal is not to prove his guilt and speak of punishment of him, but to avoid speaking of any of this at all, so that her own guilt will not be used as a reason for he to end or modify the marriage.

Flip around complete.  The guilty will now be sought out by the innocent, with the innocent hoping that the guilty can forgive and forget about this, and just move on!  And if you think that's all very stupid, and cannot happen, well, you've limited experience with jerk men, or for that matter jerk women, as they can pull equivalents.

The Flip Around Scam works on far more than just betrayed wives.  It's a scam for any time you do not wish to be held accountable for a wrong doing you've committed, or if you do not wish to have to go to the trouble of punishing someone who did wrong.

"I'm more concerned with your failure to be quiet in the library
then this spurious allegation of me kissing Juanita in the stacks!"

Like if you're a boss, and you have to deal with the owner's son working in your department.  You know, the owner's son who always causes trouble but you can't really touch without getting grief.

One day at a routine office meeting, someone asks why the TPS reports weren't done right, and some regular employee speaks up, "It's because he *points to the owner's son* didn't do it!  He never does them!  When can we finally get someone who will do them so the rest of us won't fall behind any more?"

Clearly the employee is justifiably angry and has named something that justifies anger.  He's also making it that you - the boss - must now do something, or you're the baddie.  You can't do anything to the owner's kid, but you sure don't want to look like the baddie!

So you Flip Around!

Boss:  "You're entirely out of order!  If there were any legitimate concerns - and that's a big IF - you should have talked to the employee in question first, or if that didn't work, come to me!  After all, we're here today to get things accomplished, not this surprise ambush of a co-worker!  This is completely unprofessional!"

Complainer:  "I'm sorry."

Boss:  "Fine.  Next time you know."

Okay, so let's review that.

First, the flat out of the gate shut down, as bosses have more authority than husbands!  And by making sure the employee knows the boss is angry - through tone and labels - the employee now fears for his own position.  Which drives out of mind the previous concern about what - if anything - would be done about the slacker.

Secondly, it's as if he's the guilty one, as you've named at least three supposed offenses of his.  That he failed in procedure twice and that he violated some previously unknown sanctity of a meeting!  That the emotionally charged words like "ambush" and "unprofessional" really gives him a good "back off blast"!

Thirdly, after the instant apology, you as the boss just gave an unresponsive dismissive statement.  Not that you'd review it, not that you'd do anything.  If he had enough temerity, you could afford to say "You may trust we'll look into everything", with the emphasis on "everything" letting the employee know you meant him.

Issue now dead.  The owner's son need not be talked to, and no employee will risk being targeted by you next!  Therefore they will instead solve your problem by picking up the slack - on their own - of the owner's son!

Now that's managerial brilliance in responsibility avoidance - Flip Around Scam style!

Of course, it's actually for crap.  The Flip Around NEVER rewards goodness and decency, always and ever it only rewards the guilty.  That's the only thing the Flip Around is for, so that's no surprise.  It's the tool of guilty husbands and bosses who don't want to do their job.

Or are afraid to.

How about in the legal arena?  You bet!  There's been prosecutors who not wishing to prosecute the son of a rich man who burgled a citizen's home will instead threaten to charge the home owner for the injuries the home owner gave that kid!

This changes the dialogue from "Hey, Mr. DA, how come you aren't prosecuting the guy who I shot when he crept through my daughter's window?" to "Ok, Mr. DA, I appreciate you not prosecuting me for shooting at the guy who crept through my daughter's window."

How about in the religious world?  You bet!

I've lately seen the fanstastical display of a good woman weepingly reading from the Bible and seeking solace and aid from her pastor and peers, and the pastor trying to shut her down by accusing her - and those who were in support of her - as being like a "lynch mob" and for me in asking about it the next day being "inciting".

She didn't ask in the right time and place - but when pressed, he admitted he did not know himself any ideal or proper time and place.  I "incited" by asking two Elders and a Pastor what to do.  Who besides they I should have asked - well, he could not name any other better course.

See, as was mentioned in another blog - Theological Musings - ministers are frightened that by a "commission of discipline" they might lose a member, even a bad one.  So they prefer to risk losing several good members by their "omission of discipline", which they feel somehow makes them less at fault.

They also hope - like the Flip Around boss - that if they throw it back on the good members, the good members will pick up the slack to mitigate the bad actions of the bad member.  Then the pastor gets the benefit of doing nothing, and everything still lurches forward.  True, the baddie will inevitably drive yet more away, and even some of the good will drop out, or while staying, lose heart, but hey, controversy will be avoided, and real decisions will be put off, so a win, yes?

Uh huh.  A win for the Flip Around Scammer.  And the baddies involved.

Never for the good.  Not for the good wife.  Not for the good employees.  Not for the good home owner.  And not for the good church members.

It is a scam, and like all scams listed in this blog, needs to be fought with education and awareness. You are now educated and aware.  Next and last is the firm naming of it.  That is ALL one ever has to do to deflate this scam.

Name it.  The Flip Around scam is a like a cockroach - it cannot stand light.  It thrives only when some good person doesn't know about it, and trusting the other, gets their trust brutally used against them.

When ever you see it tried on another, or you, name it at once.

"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt, from the one who hurt to the one who was hurt.  It is not a 'lynching' to be hurt by another and then seek out help and aid from your church family and church leadership."

"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt, from the one who hurt to the one who was hurt.  It is not 'inciting' to seek counsel from Elders and a Pastor."
 
"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt.  Maybe you have legitimate sins of mine and my friends to speak of later.  But we are only here and now speaking of the sin of the man who hurt us.  Address that. There will be time later to address how we could have better reacted in pain and anguish."

Those I just field tested recently, so I know they work.

But that also works for every situation because the Flip Around Scam is the same - and just as bad - no matter whether it's done by Pastor or cheating husband, District Attorney or work boss.

"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt, from you who may be having an affair to me who at worst looked at an open screen.  Address my concern first, and I promise will do my best to atone for any wrong in looking at that screen."

"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt.  From the owner's son who is never disciplined to the rest of us who must then do more work.  Are we getting raises?  Or are we dusting off resumes?"

"No.  This is a flipping around of the guilt.  From the man who terrified my wife and daughter in the wee hours of the morning under cover of darkness, to I who apparently winged him in the shoulder when I attempted to drive the unknown threat away from my loved ones.  When is he being prosecuted?"

The commonality is that in each case you recognize that the Flip Around Scammer is very concerned with trying to deal "justly", ha, ha, with your supposed bad reaction.  But very reticent about in any way dealing meaningfully - or at all - with the action that prompted your reaction.

"Honest" error

As the cynical saying goes, "It's better to apologize later than ask permission first."  Mainly because most of us know when the answer is going to be "no", so if we want to do what we want to anyway, we must pretend that we thought it was okay, and be prepared to say "sorry" when we're inevitably scolded.

Cute, I suppose, when we are kids and it's a matter of taking a cookie because "Well, mom didn't say we couldn't take a cookie from Aunt Thelma's cookie jar right before dinner, just the cookie jar at our home!"  Not so cute when you realize that a large percent of our nation's government, business and churches are run - or run into the ground - on this same cynical principle.

I'll be taking three examples, one for when some in government pull this, and also for when some in business or churches do.  Some may dislike this or that example, but the examples are just examples, it's not about whether you are in favor of any of them or not in favor of any of them.  What's being put across here is the cynical principle of "Since I can't get my own way legitimately, I'll pretend that I think something is okay when I know it is not, and by the time I'm caught - if I'm ever caught - I'll have already ate the cookie!".

"Blah, blah, blah, your favorite cause, blah, blah, blah."

The "No Flag Burning" laws of the eighties and nineties.  Remember before gay marriage when flag burning was the "big" issue to distract the masses?  And in each case, the legislators would pass all these feel good laws banning "flag desecration" even though any village idiot with a Constitution in one hand and the Dictionary in the other could have said that such was a right?

The game then was to play that the men who had trained in the law for seven years and built a career on knowing the Constitution of the United States of America were too stupid to know that flag burning is a form of expression.  That a Constitution that was only to delegate some powers, and that made no mention of flag burning, and that further in the 1st and 10th amendment acknowledged such expression as a right, some how permitted this new law.

And so it was perfectly okay to pass a law against flag burning, because they "honestly" thought that it was okay.

Result?  If any disagreed, they had to burn the flag with ill thoughts (because burning it for a respectful destruction of it was not only legal but hilariously mandatory!), then be arrested, then sit in jail and let the case wind all the way up to the Supreme Court at tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and years in waiting.  Before the Supreme Court finally said the obvious that I as a child of 15 had said at the start - that yeah, the Government has no right to keep you from burning your own property and that burning it for political motives is by definition an act of expression.

Oops.  Congress's bad.  Not that they apologized.  They just promptly tried it again, and had that one struck down also.  At other people's time and trouble and expense.

Or how about businesses?  With an army of lawyers and PR agents and lobbyists they will "honestly" believe they are in compliance with environmental regulations even while pouring sewage and poison into a river feeding into a reservoir for a entire town.  Or towns.

When approached by a citizen's group with damnably obvious proof in the form of brown water and dead kids, or even then approached by investigative journalists with brown water and dead kids, or even then confronted by some EPA agent with the same brown water and the same dead kids (just more dead kids by that point), they will deny, deny, and for variety, deny, while continuing to pour the poisons in to the river while saying that "more study" is needed.

They will put everyone to the trouble of a lawsuit that will drag on for millions of dollars and a decade or more, before finally, it will be ruled that yeah, pouring poison and sewage into a river that feeds into a reservoir really is a violation of the Clean Water Act, and that the brown water really is brown and that the dead kids are, in fact, dead kids.  At which point - and only after all the appeals have run their course - will they stop doing that.

And start doing it under another re-incorporation one river over.  And not realize or understand - "honestly" - that doing the same thing to this new river counts as the same kind of bad.  At least not without more studies.  And more dead kids.

Or how about churches?  Too many in the hierarchy of too many churches will claim to - "honestly" - believe that there is no real prohibition against homosexuality, it's all just translation errors and differing cultures and past bigotries!  Any parishioner over the age of seven will readily see that for better or worse that the Bible in both the Old and the New Testament very clearly prohibits homosexuality, but it'll be insisted with a straight face that an openly lesbian bishop is perfectly fine!

Then the rogue local conference of some besieged church will appoint such a bishop, some lesbian woman openly married to another lesbian woman, and pretend that the words in the church rule book that forbid such, and the words in the Bible that forbid such, mean nothing, or anything else but what the words actually say.

And they'll put the rest of the church to the time and trouble of fighting it, and going to ecclesiastical court over it and risking schisms and heart aches and drop offs in attendance all to ram through their own private agenda upon the entire world of believers who joined the church for not agreeing with that very thing!

And after it's ruled "no", they'll re-introduce it another way, or raise another "argument" that they will - "honestly" - believe!  "Maybe it's okay if they're legally married!" or "Maybe the words that said, 'don't do this ever' meant that each sub section of the church was to decide!" or "God is Love, so, so, so there!" or "Maybe since there's so much confusion on this we need to have a whole conference on this to see about 'clarifying' the rules!"

Meanwhile that homosexual church teachers and preachers are molesting children, well that little "side-effect" gets shouted down the moment it is brought up.  "Homosexuality is not pedophilia!" will be the chant used to bludgeon you into silence, as if they truly don't get that a deviancy from the norm in one area makes it statistically more likely for a deviation from the norm in another.  Or that given that most adult parishioners know that engaging in homosexual play is sinful, who else but the children could be sought?

What do all three of those examples have in common?  Besides innocents being jailed, killed, molested or otherwise abused?

In all three of those cases, and in every other case in each of those three realms, it is profoundly selfish and profoundly evil men (and women) who feel that their personal wishes are to take precedent over the wishes and well-being of every other person involved.  That is how they honestly feel, and it is the only thing that they honestly feel.  All other claims of "honestly" feeling or believing a thing are lies, flat out lies, and blatantly obvious lies.

They know that this trick will work because they know that everyone judges others on how they are. Thus as most of us are regular honest Joes (and Janes) we'll naturally assume others are.  So when these Little Psychopaths (the kind that don't personally kill) trot out their "plausible" stories of how "this expression isn't really expression" or "this toxic sludge isn't what the Clean Water Act meant" or "when Paul said that unrepentant homosexuals won't see Heaven he really meant we should ordain them" the rest of us are to think, "Aww, gee, do they believe that?  Well, golly, I guess we'll have to all go to a bunch of time and trouble to correct them as they bitterly fight us every step of the way!"

Or - and here's the real point - say, "We've fought this issue so long, I can't afford it any longer.  Fine, let them jail hot head teens, or poison a whole town or minister to the congregation with his co-husband!"

You, the reader reading this, you pause at the phrase "Little Psychopaths", but that is what they are. Oh, not all who then go along with it are, but those who originally propose it and vigorously proclaim it are. And yeah, some who do go along with it are not tricked or fatigued into that, but have their own little malicious reasons for wishing things to be a way they know is inappropriate.

And it is we, the "polite ones" who not being evil cannot conceive it in others that let them get away with it.  If more people were willing to unashamedly stand up and say, "Senator Porkbarrel?  You're an idiot and/or a liar.  There is no world in which you could have spent nearly a decade studying Constitutional Law and think that letting Citizen A burn a flag to dispose of it is fine, but Citizen B burning a flag while thinking bad thoughts is not fine.  You are being a demagogue and a rabble rouser and trying to wipe your bottom with the very Constitution you claim to hold sacred and swore an oath to defend."

Or, "Oh, you work for SludgeCo?  Then you are a well-poisoning, child murdering psycho and when you say you're just working to feed your family all I'm hearing is that you choose to feed them by being a hired killer instead of working for an honest living like the rest of us do.  All I'm hearing is 'Blah, blah, blah, I'm an order following, baby killing Nazi'."

Or, "Oh, your cousin, son, niece or such is homosexual and they're good people and who are we to judge?  So what?  Sorry to hear it!  But drunkards, murderers and homosexuals don't get to go to heaven unless they repent of being a drunkard, repent of being a murderer, or - oh yeah - repent of homosexuality!  As to who I am to judge, I'm the person who Christ told to judge in righteousness in John 7:24!  And yeah, that means your loved one is a sinning sinner, who no matter how nice, sweet and gosh darn cute they are - shouldn't be teaching the kids alone or preaching to anyone who has hope for heaven!"

When we fail to say such things loudly, clearly and yes, even "rudely" - as no matter how you say it, it'll be took as "rude" - then we are conceding the battle to all the Little Psychopaths who not content with the stolen cookies of childhood are now going to seize the whole world and with crumbs on their greedy lips say that they don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'.

And we have, in the main, failed to say anything.  Which is why businesses are doing whatever they please and whenever they please to whoever they please.  And why those who want to destroy organized religion strive to keep watering down the message into nothingness - and when it leads to less member retention, not more as they said it would, they respond by watering it down even more! Which is why Congress perpetually makes any law against all the things that the Bill of Rights said they'd make "no law" against.

This is not as inconsequential as you think.  Business-wise, it's why that government regulatory agencies are little more than rubber stamps to give an impression of fairness and justice to any chicanery they choose to partake in.  Government-wise, it's why more than 100,000 teens have been killed overseas in the past 70 plus years - even though we've not declared any war in 70 plus years!  Religion-wise it's why you see women ministers last year and lesbian ministers this year and married lesbian co-wives as Bishops the next year.

It's why the numbers of Christians in America have gone from 98% to 68%.  It's why our "limited government" now controls, regulates, taxes and oversees every facet of our lives.  It's why Business is King and Unions are co-opted when they're not disbanded.

All for psychopaths using pretense instead of poison, golden words instead of guns, sophisms instead of stabbings.  And their goals are the same as any "real" psychopaths.  Directing or Destroying.  They want to run things, or they want to run it into the ground.

They also have allies.  Any who like something being different, but know that it is wrong, or that it would make them look bad to advocate for it, will ally with the smooth talk of the "honest" psycho. They will gladly pretend - for the sake of their job - that the factory isn't polluting "too" much, if at all. Or that their nation isn't really the baddie, it's that other nations hate us for our freedom.  Or that sin isn't really sin - when they know someone who does that particular sin, or want to do that themselves.

Those are the strongest allies of those who seek to direct or destroy.  Similarly strong - because while less strident, there are more of them - are the ones who just don't want to get involved.  They'll then follow whoever screams loudest, and in this culture, that's mostly those who have the sly agenda.  They sometimes even see the game, or at least know that the person is full of it, but they're just keeping their head down, they're not there to cause trouble or make waves.

The psychopath and his active and passive followers count for 99% of all mankind.  1% psychopaths, 8% active followers, and 90% passive folk who won't oppose the 9%.

The last 1% are those few who see the game and name the game.  And since they use real words like "psychopath" they mostly will fail in waking anyone up, as it is far more comfortable to dismiss them and just assume that to the extent anything is ever wrong, it is only due to "honest" error.

For many of the followers, it may be.  For the few yelling the loudest - no.

The Church Brother Scam

I'm in a variety of religious themed groups on facebook.  Which is no surprise, as I'm religious.  At such groups people who are of generally the same beliefs and mostly the same churches post nice memes and quotes and articles and such, all tending to glorify God and educate ourselves and our fellow man about Christ and His atonement.

But not all are there for the same reasons.  Some are there because they are scamming foxes and they see a religious group as like a church - a place filled with nice, fat and dumb chickens, just waiting to be ate!

Who are these some?

Well, they are the ones who inhabit the net cafes of Nigeria and Benin and Liberia and Ghana and Sierra Leone and other West African nations.  Or for that matter, the net cafes of India and the Philippines.  Why those nations?  Because they are the poor nations in which English is spoke rather widely, and so it is possible for them to do all the various scams you are no doubt aware of.

They are the ones who want you to aid their Uncle in moving a large amount of money out of the country - and you may have 10% of that $100,000,000 (ONe HUndreD MILION DOLAR) fortune!  (Their spelling errors, not mine!)  Or they'll do the investment scam or the business opportunity scam or the lonely hearts scam or any other scam you can think of.

Including, for the purposes of this article, the "Church Brother Scam".

I'll tell you what happened this morning - though it is hardly unusual and not the first time I've had it tried on me - and you can then see how it works.

First, I get a friend request from a person I do not know.  An American name, but I notice the profile has him down as in the Philippines.  Bear in mind that friend requests from foreign names you do not know should usually be turned down, and in fact, you should mostly turn down any friend request if you don't know them, even if it is an American name, like he went to the trouble of pretending.

Me, I often do accept such requests, mainly as I run an inordinate number of facebook groups so I know that often people in those groups will send friend requests meaning no harm.  And I don't want to get facebook upset with them by denying the request.

I accepted his then, and looked over the profile and saw his nation of origin, but no real indicator of who he was.  No religious posts, no professions of faith, and no political postings either such as would indicate that he followed me in any of those groups.  But over 2,500 friends, and that's a red flag.

Second, he messaged me right out of the gate.  Thereby letting me know that the only point of the friend request was to message me.

Marc:  "Hello sir"  Note the heightened level of respect towards a person (me) who is in theory just a friend. Another red flag, of the "you're about to be asked for money" sort.

Me:  Hello

Marc:  Can I ask a favor please sir? *crying emoticon*

Note the 100% chance of being asked for money has shot up to a 1,000,000% now!

Me:  Asking is free.

Marc:  Please sir I very need money sir *crying emoticon* *crying emoticon* *crying emoticon* please sir help me... or if you can help me then just pray for me sir

Marc:  *thumbs up emoticon*

Marc:  please sir *crying emoticon*

Marc:  GodBless you

Marc:  Im an Seventh Day Adventist sir

Marc:  You there sir?

Now understand I was there the whole time, but busy looking at his profile.  My first inclination was that he was a kid, probably heard the bigger kids (the 16 to 22 crowd) bragging about making "phat" cash off of dumb Westerners.

His poor English tells me that he's not operating off of a cut and paste script like the older ones would be, and also he's not engaging in even the minimal finesse that is typical of the more mature scammer.

For instance, a seasoned scammer would have tried to engage me a bit first - not much, they've no time to waste, but a bit.  The old, "How are you doing?  I hope your family is well!  Did you enjoy church last Sunday?"  (Most scammers are used to Sunday worship schedules, though don't go to any church at all.)

Then they'll ask for money, but only with a story.  The "I am the only support for my seven brothers and need to work to care for them and so cannot to go to school but if I had money to I could go and take the better care of them." ruse.

In their case, the illiteracy could still be poor English skills, or it could be an affectation so as to make the gullible Westerner feel superior.  If you think someone is your inferior, you pity them a bit, and so are more inclined to aid them - or so Scammer 101 teaches.

Often I mess about with scammers, just to keep them on their toes.  Most of them are using fake nics, but I'll google the local police of their town, find out who the head guy there is, then tell the scammer that I turned his IP over to Mbwami Smith or whichever name it was.  That always gives them a fright, as often the local law over there is far more strict on this stuff then we are.

Not that I'll actually bother doing that, just telling them generates the desired effect.

Now this kid seemed a kid, for reasons I've said, and I was inclined to just block and leave it at that.  But then, impatient for me to say "yes" to sending him money, or for me to at least ask why, he trotted out the "Im an Seventh Day Adventist sir" bit.

Granted, I hate all scammers, as for all that the movies depict them as "clever" and "savvy" they're really almost always bottom feeding low IQ scum preying off the uneducated, the gullible, and yes, sad to say, sometimes the not so honest "victim" who is a bit dishonest, or he or she would not be falling for it.

But the uneducated and gullible don't deserve what they get, which is heart ache and sometimes grave financial disaster.

This kid was playing the church card.  I've seen it before.  In Methodist groups the guy will be a fellow Methodist.  Mormon groups get them, too.  As do Lutheran and Baptist and Catholic groups.

Often times they'll know a bit about the faith, too.  For having read the stuff posted in the group they are fishing in, or from just googling it.  Or even having been drug to whichever church in their local village.  Most American churches are expansionist, so it's not hard to find one, especially in the capitols.

Back to the kid.  He's making the appeal based upon a shared faith, and that can't be ignored now.  I click back over to his profile for a second look, and at the same time answered:

"Why haven't you asked the brothers in your church for help?"

Long pause.  I suspect that he's flagged one of the older kids as what he probably started as idle fun has now turned into a "possible".  Any time you don't say "no" at once, that's a "possible", they take it as a fisherman takes the bob bobbing.

Marc:  They don't sir because it's a financial problem sir... i hope you can help me sir even if just a small amount sir it will be a big blessing for me sir...God bless you always sir.

Me:  What's your minister's name?  You talk to him yet?  What did he say?

No response.  A minute passes, still no response.  More minutes pass.  This means he's gave up and moved on to the next sucker.  Or just regrets starting it without proper preparation.  Obviously anyone experiencing an emergency would have been more than happy to answer those questions.

I also note that he leaped up to the level of using words like "financial" and also that unfamiliar with what came before is just going for any amount, instead of a specific amount for a specifically named crises.

Still.  I am finding absolutely ZERO evidence of Adventism in his feed or profile or photos.  And it's rare not to come across a gospel quote, church selfie, or some such.  He has family listed in one section, which is why I suspect that he was a kid on a lark.

And still no reply to my inquiry as to what his minister said.  No mention ever of what this was for.  The desire for any amount of money.  The change in wording as if another had come on.  I decide that not only will this inspire an article, but I'll give him a shot across his bow to make him think about whether this is the "career" he wants.

So I message one of his cousins.  A prosperous looking young woman who apparently lives in one of the big cities.  I let her know that her cousin Marc is in dire trouble, as he has found it needful to contact strangers online for money, because his church wouldn't help.  Since she's Catholic, I suspect this will greatly surprise her and not please her very much at all.

The beauty of this is that one, I know he was playing, and now he's going to get a bit of grief when she calls his mom to ask what's up.  But two, if he was not playing - 1 in a 1,000,000 - then he can have that aid.  But for those of you wondering, of course he was playing, do you imagine there is any world in which a church is going to turn down one of their own in need?

Only if they know you don't really "need" it.  And who better to know then those closest to you?

Me:  I just messaged your cousin **** so she can make sure you get help.

He instantly replied, he who had been so silent for so long.  I mean those little three wavy dots started at once, and ended at once.

Marc:  Stop, don't message anyone!

Ahh, the idiocy of using your real account for a scam, I thought.  He is a child after all, probably 14, 15 tops.

Me:  Oh, and I also just messaged your friend **** to let him know you're in trouble and needing to have strangers online send you money.  He should be wishing to help, yes?

Marc:  *profanity*, leave his friends alone.

Me:  His friends?  Who's this?  You the ringmaster running the 419s today?  Any old lady wired her pension fund to you yet?

"Marc":  It's not his fault.  He won't contact you again.

I've ran into that before.  Where when you call one of them out and they know you know they'll post something like that.  It's a concession, they're just hoping to have you let it go at that, and honestly, that's usually the best course.  There's little else to do anyway, so why not?

Which is why I wrote "fair enough" so as to leave it at that.  Kid learned his lesson and all that.  But when I hit enter, his buddy had already blocked for him.  Smart buddy.

But I nevertheless went over to the group that I suspected he had seen my name in and sure enough, there he was on the member list.  Maybe he's an idle kid playing, maybe he's a beginner looking to learn.  Who knows?  So I blocked him.  And the person who had admitted him.  That person had never posted, so I went with my slash and burn policy on Group Safety.

Here's the deal, folks.  People all around the world - but particularly in the poor English speaking parts - will join all manner of groups in order to go fishing.  You wonder, "How profitable could it be?"  Well, pretty darn profitable.

Say someone is playing at this for 4 hours.  There's the initial day or two set up of nic creation and group joining.  But after that, it's just try, try and try again.  It may well cost them $5 for a day of playing at the net cafe.  But I guarantee you that given how many folks they can message per day, they'll make that back no trouble.

They only need one person to send them $50.  That would cover their net fees and meals for the week and still leave $10 leftover.  In countries where the average monthly income can be only a few U.S. dollars.  And here they are making - if it goes slow, very, very slow - $40 a month.  But I guarantee they'll make more than that.  I would say that anyone trying over there ought to be able to get half a dozen people to part with $50.

Each week.  A five day week of only four hour days.

Most have their stories ready.  Needing school is a current favorite, but sick relatives or even starving relatives is still used.  So you know, there are very few people starving with access to facebook.  Something about the whole - oh, yeah, they're starving so are scavenging for food, not playing on a laptop or iPhone that could feed their family for a month!

If you send them money, your heart may be in the right place, but you are being a fool.  And encouraging them to keep doing this and so they'll eventually fleece someone who might not be able to afford it as much as you.

Remember that when it comes to charity, start with home first.  Then community.  Then your region.  Then state.  Then nation.  Way towards the end, the world.  The first level is safest.  As you get further and further out, the odds of your aid being eaten up in administrative costs, re-directed aid, salaries, scams or other nonsense, grows and grows.

And yet if some enormous disaster occurs overseas, such as you are inclined to make an exception, or if you just enjoy helping overseas in general, then for heaven's sake, do so through your local church!  In the case of Seventh-day Adventists, that is ADRA, and they've a world wide reach.

And impeccable integrity.

If there is some particular person overseas that you truly think needs aid, talk to that person's minister.  Oh, they don't want to name their minister?  Well, that kind of tells the tale, doesn't it?

I posted a nearly identical piece of advice like this in a Latter-day Saint group once, another group that is notoriously preyed upon.  But I notice that all church groups of all faiths are preyed upon.  Castigated by our own media, the rest of the world knows who is the most generously giving.

And being generously giving is fine, just make sure that you're giving to those who need it and won't abuse it. Not some kid trying to impress the big kids at the Freetown Net Cafe.