There is no wife using the account, people. Let's get real.
He's a douchebag who's past came back to haunt him, and this is a feeble attempt to divert attention. Nothing more. He's a piece of shit who thinks he's actually got a brain and is playing on the gullible.

To answer your question, NO the username should not be banned. Think about this. You can ban the name, but not the trash behind it. Do you really believe that "banned" users don't come back using different handles? Please don't tell me anyone believes that, because I know for a fact that it happens. Hell, there's some guys on this site on their 3rd or 4th handle. Same scary scum behind the keyboard, only this time no one knows it.
The devil you know is safer than the devil you don't. Let people like this keep their handles and think everything is fine.
Then, pop up once in a while to remind the community of what garbage they are and watch 'em squirm like this current worm.

Remember. Banning doesn't eliminate the problem....it only helps it hide better.

There is a thread below by Bigredcar. After questions were asked about this hobbyist threatening to out a provider, someone now claiming to be his wife says she has taken over his account.

Does anybody else view this a detriment to the community?  She has access if it is in fact wife to reviews, exposing ladies he's seen recently to drama, and could even be acting as him while gathering info from fellow hobbyists.

Do you think in cases like this the username should be banned?

Thoughts?

I don't know about the banning part, but certainly one would hope anyone thinking their VIP account has been compromised would have the common decency to change his log-on password as that is the only way to be able to post and see specific detail on ladies.  Otherwise the rest of the site is pretty open to public.

I'm not sure if the post is real. Supposed wife claims she logged in after he's logged off.  The entire thread seems fishy. He has written several reviews since his alias was flipped off the GD board in November so it seems if his wife really knew, he wouldn't have been reviewing. Maybe this is just his attempt to get the heat off. I don't know, but obviously whomever is posting, be it her or him has the login info to be posting under said username. Very scary thought to have the VIP info and review/pm info in the hands of the wrong people.

It stinks to high heaven.....

Hell if my so found my hobby material I would be broke, castrated, and dead.  Not necessarily in that order.

I like your idea, but it has flaws.  First, it would be easy for the souse to create new fictional account and dog hubby's and any lady he saw.  Second, I am not sure I totally buy the story.

I do think the id should be moderated and reviews removed.  Pain for hobbiest but all of us at one time or another have been stupid and had our accounts cleared out.  The gentleman will need to start fresh, but hey, he can see his favorites again and post reviews so should be quick.  This way it is no harm no foul.  He will keep his accumulated days credit, but any impacted lady is cleared.

For the community integrity the ip address and machine / device indicator code linked to this destructive element should be blocked.  It would force hobbiest to buy new machinery but maybe then he would learn some security protocols.  For instance, I am probably close to needing new ter Id and a new hobby phone.  I should have done that with my new surf box, but slow and old turns into just plain lazy.  Yep it's paranoia, but not unwarranted

Thoughts

What I read in that thread was the guy making a post and then another post by the person claiming to be his wife.  Whether it is BS or not, I hope our ladies see that and understand that he is not safe for them to see.  Whether it be negligence on his part or BS - the end result is the same.  No lady needs the drama of an upset spouse on a mission, real or imagined.   I am sure the drama we guys create on our own is more than sufficient for them.

years ago our firm had a client come in with a binder full of printouts of her husband's TER reviews and printouts of profiles, websites, and photo postings/threads from discussion boards.  Kept my poker face when recognizing one "friend" of my own.  In deposition, Husband/hobbyist claimed it was all fictional postings for the sake of a VIP membership and amusement.  They ended up settling, that one wasn't going to court.

I think it put's everyone in harm's way. I would hope the gentlemen would do everything he could to protect us from any harm.

-- Modified on 3/16/2011 2:04:07 PM

Him in November on the General discussion board for threatening to out a provider because her service was sub par. Of course this was only after he read her lousy reviews and made the informed decision to see her anyway.

I personally don't think his wife is behind the keyboard after reading the thread again. Would he still be hobbying, and writing reviews?  Doubt it. I think he got called out for bad behavior and is now looking for an out to take the heat off. I do think he should be banned based on threats of outing a lady. And I'm glad admin exposed him for the piece of shit he is. Outing or even floating a notion to do it should be grounds for termination IMHO.

Posted By: bwcoyote

What I read in that thread was the guy making a post and then another post by the person claiming to be his wife.  Whether it is BS or not, I hope our ladies see that and understand that he is not safe for them to see.  Whether it be negligence on his part or BS - the end result is the same.  No lady needs the drama of an upset spouse on a mission, real or imagined.   I am sure the drama we guys create on our own is more than sufficient for them.

Harsh, blunt, using an alias but probably more than one grain of wisdom here

The only difference is the same name, but so similar in that the poster is hiding behind another name in a way that you wouldn't know their true identity.  And similar that "hiding" behind another name or alias is often used to cause trouble.  If alias are allowed and welcome why not spouses or SO's sharing the same account?

Although in "this" case INL is most likely right there is no spouse involved.