Is Reef Resort Sihanoukville run by scammers?
I went halves in a boomerang business. Not had any returns yet.
\Crabtree
\Crabtree
pew, pew, pew, pew!
Looks like theres another
www.reefresort.net
I've heard a lot of people talk badly about this group. Seems like they've ripped off quite a few people.
Investors beware.
www.reefresort.net
I've heard a lot of people talk badly about this group. Seems like they've ripped off quite a few people.
Investors beware.
I also heard that one of these crooks conned a Barang couple into buying a NGO marine conservation business off them, on one of the Koh Rong islands and lost all their money due to a load of lies that they were given!
A lot of local poor Khmer people there were also owed money for work that they didn't get paid for by one of these scammers!
So most of what has been posted on their website appears to be true.
How LOW can some people go??
A lot of local poor Khmer people there were also owed money for work that they didn't get paid for by one of these scammers!
So most of what has been posted on their website appears to be true.
How LOW can some people go??
So Scobie, you are happy for this forum to now be used as a conduit for 1st time posters to post unsubstantiated rumours? Can't see the pattern here?
Now who's getting conned hmmm?
Now who's getting conned hmmm?
Well, as they have created a series of websites already - including hacking the place's own website - I don't really see that allowing them to post here is adding to any more to the situation. I have been in touch with one of the guys in question, and invited (even advised) him to post here to state his side of things. He is thinking about it He has an open platform.
I'm not sure what you would have me do biloeboy. To ban such posts would be to take sides, and I'm not prepared to do that. Both sides have the right to express their views - it's not for me to judge who is right or wrong.
Do you leave messages for Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook shareholders when similar stuff you don't like is posted there?
I'm not sure what you would have me do biloeboy. To ban such posts would be to take sides, and I'm not prepared to do that. Both sides have the right to express their views - it's not for me to judge who is right or wrong.
Do you leave messages for Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook shareholders when similar stuff you don't like is posted there?
How disingenuous of you Scobie.scobienz wrote:Well, as they have created a series of websites already - including hacking the place's own website - I don't really see that allowing them to post here is adding to any more to the situation. I have been in touch with one of the guys in question, and invited (even advised) him to post here to state his side of things. He is thinking about it He has an open platform.
I'm not sure what you would have me do biloeboy. To ban such posts would be to take sides, and I'm not prepared to do that. Both sides have the right to express their views - it's not for me to judge who is right or wrong.
Do you leave messages for Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook shareholders when similar stuff you don't like is posted there?
Funnily enough, you are directly responsible for what is posted here, Zuckerberg really isn't for whats posted on FB. Didn't expect much else from you though tbh.
Now you will argue the point about Zuckerberg not being directly responsible of course.
Why am I directly responsible for what's posted here and zuckerberg or his staff isn't on FB?
This is a user based forum. You and every other poster are responsible for what is posted here. I am responsible for my posts only.
Do I have to explain the special provisions of the CDA again, for the hundredth time?
People are free to post what they like. The only time I intervene is when it goes against forum guidelines. As far as I can see no rules have been broken.
As an aside, I see one of the guys from Reef created an account today. Perhaps he has something to say.
This is a user based forum. You and every other poster are responsible for what is posted here. I am responsible for my posts only.
Do I have to explain the special provisions of the CDA again, for the hundredth time?
People are free to post what they like. The only time I intervene is when it goes against forum guidelines. As far as I can see no rules have been broken.
As an aside, I see one of the guys from Reef created an account today. Perhaps he has something to say.
-
- Making Khmer girls cry since 2003
- Reactions: 130
- Posts: 21358
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:15 pm
Well, "I only intervene when it's against forum guidelines" isn't true at all. You intervene when you feel like it and you celebrate the arbitrary nature of your decisions.
Follow my lame Twitter feed: @gavin_mac
Ok. Let me rephrase. I will intervene only when I consider people are being insufferable pains in the arse. Is that better?
Anonymous posters - you're all anonymous btw - coming here making accusations isn't my responsibility and it's not my role to decide if they are fair or not and why blioeboy thinks I should be held to higher degrees of accountability than any other shareholder in the millions of social media platforms and user based websites worldwide is beyond me. Am I meant to fact check everything before allowing the post to stand? This is 440 not the fucking Economist.
I hope he explains his reasoning.
Anonymous posters - you're all anonymous btw - coming here making accusations isn't my responsibility and it's not my role to decide if they are fair or not and why blioeboy thinks I should be held to higher degrees of accountability than any other shareholder in the millions of social media platforms and user based websites worldwide is beyond me. Am I meant to fact check everything before allowing the post to stand? This is 440 not the fucking Economist.
I hope he explains his reasoning.
1/ You are not just a "shareholder" You are the majority shareholder on a very small group. Zuckerberg is a majority shareholder of a VERY large group. Just comparing yourself to him tells me something.)Yes you have responsibility.
2/ You are responsible for your posts only? You are the fukn OWNER of this forum. Same as FB has been sued and Zuckerberg has had to take responsibility - YOU do also.
3/ Allowing 1st time posters to make accusatory comments about businesses or people - well you have stepped in before. Usually only when it is to defend 1 of your mates though.
4/ If 1 of the Reef owners decides to make unfounded and slanderous comments about the "hacker", I would expect you to intervene then also.
FFS mate, you bought this fukn forum and with it you bought some responsibility for what is posted on it. That is simply life.Stop the self justification/denial bullshit and either accept your responsibility, or if you can't/won't, sell the bloody thing on to someone else.
2/ You are responsible for your posts only? You are the fukn OWNER of this forum. Same as FB has been sued and Zuckerberg has had to take responsibility - YOU do also.
3/ Allowing 1st time posters to make accusatory comments about businesses or people - well you have stepped in before. Usually only when it is to defend 1 of your mates though.
4/ If 1 of the Reef owners decides to make unfounded and slanderous comments about the "hacker", I would expect you to intervene then also.
FFS mate, you bought this fukn forum and with it you bought some responsibility for what is posted on it. That is simply life.Stop the self justification/denial bullshit and either accept your responsibility, or if you can't/won't, sell the bloody thing on to someone else.
-
- Making Khmer girls cry since 2003
- Reactions: 130
- Posts: 21358
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:15 pm
Is it fair to conclude that Biloeboy thinks the accueed owners of the Reef are top blokes, just like Mick the Pom?
Follow my lame Twitter feed: @gavin_mac
Biloe's passionate arguments are all very rousing and uplifting but that doesn't make them right. I've said it before and I'll say it again - section 230 of the CDA clearly explains a forum owner's responsibility.
He might argue I have a moral responsibility. That's a different issue altogether. Going down that path opens up all sorts of issues around mods and admin having to fact check every post,and by definition take sides about what we allow and don't allow.
I don't know the guys from Reef. It's not for me to take sides one way or the other. I've given them the chance to reply. What they do with that is up to them.
Cheer up bileoboy. You're going to have a heart attack one of these days if you remain so excitable.
He might argue I have a moral responsibility. That's a different issue altogether. Going down that path opens up all sorts of issues around mods and admin having to fact check every post,and by definition take sides about what we allow and don't allow.
I don't know the guys from Reef. It's not for me to take sides one way or the other. I've given them the chance to reply. What they do with that is up to them.
Cheer up bileoboy. You're going to have a heart attack one of these days if you remain so excitable.
- Prahok
- I Am Losing It All to the Internet
- Reactions: 222
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:33 pm
What confuses me is the fact the OP and his sock puppets are making him look a bit silly and placing the Reef owners in the role of victims of a bitter business dispute, yet Biloeboy has issues with the tone of the thread.
Re: postings - correct; owners are responsible for the enforcement of forum rules, not content. This is important as owners & mods are unable to determine which side of a debate is in fact true (if any) and hence any arbitration along these lines will be intrinsically unfair.
Re: postings - correct; owners are responsible for the enforcement of forum rules, not content. This is important as owners & mods are unable to determine which side of a debate is in fact true (if any) and hence any arbitration along these lines will be intrinsically unfair.
- The third man
- 440 Member in Exile
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:28 pm
Fuck Biloeboy and his thoughts about what is morally right or who's responsible of contents. He should fuck off where he came from and stay there.
Oh I forgot, they aren't too keen on him there either.
Oh I forgot, they aren't too keen on him there either.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Thai police Vs sophisticated scammers in Cambodia
by logos » Fri Dec 16, 2022 1:56 am » in Cambodia News - 2 Replies
- 1098 Views
-
Last post by Spigzy
Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:17 am
-
-
-
Donald Trump To Open Golf & Casino Resort In Battambang
by Phuket2006 » Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:31 pm » in Cambodia News - 6 Replies
- 3185 Views
-
Last post by Guest
Sat Apr 02, 2022 5:24 pm
-
-
-
The U.S. Fears This Huge Southeast Asian Resort May Become a Chinese Naval Base
by RiverRat » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:49 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 31 Replies
- 7843 Views
-
Last post by YaTingPom
Mon Aug 05, 2019 12:29 pm
-
-
- 5 Replies
- 2136 Views
-
Last post by YaTingPom
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:25 pm