I am looking for this man

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:03 am

jaynewcastle wrote:I completely agree that fraudsters like this should be caught & punished. I don't understand why some people are defending him ?, just bizarre

Which one? The OP who changed the price afterwards and said more was owed, or the guy who has been asked to pay more than was agreed upon BEFORE he stayed in the room?

There are 2 separate issues here.

MekongMouse · Post by **MekongMouse** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:03 am

rozzieoz wrote:He's a convicted fraudster, what are you not getting about that? He's not just some guy who fell on hard times, he makes a living from lying.

I've been conned before, ended up having to declare bankruptcy. You have no idea what it's like to be conned like this until you've been there. Stop victim blaming for fucks sake. The guy is a convicted liar - that's what he does, he tells lies to get around in the world.

Yeah, for all the shit people are talking, they're gonna be glad they read this when he tries conning them next time.

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:17 am

And I agree this is a guy to look out for (hence the reason the thread has been approved to stay on CEO), but I just think it's wrong for the OP to change the price afterwards.

I think he should ONLY pay the OP for nights he agree to pay for at $30 a night.

He should NOT have to pay for the nights that were offered for free, and should NOT have to pay $60 a night for rooms that he agreed to pay $30 a night for.

That sounds scammish to me.

Am I being unreasonable here?

MekongMouse · Post by **MekongMouse** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:30 am

General Mackevili wrote:And I agree this is a guy to look out for (hence the reason the thread has been approved to stay on CEO), but I just think it's wrong for the OP to change the price afterwards.

I think he should ONLY pay the OP for nights he agree to pay for at $30 a night.

He should NOT have to pay for the nights that were offered for free, and should NOT have to pay $60 a night for rooms that he agreed to pay $30 a night for.

That sounds scammish to me.

Am I being unreasonable here?

From OP:

When he came up with an investment that his friend in Spain (he used to live in Spain) would fund I let him stay on but told him I would now bill him for his entire stay as he now did have money. Since I had no stake in his investment he can't expect me to cover his start-up expenses. After another week or so I told him I needed his room and he must leave the hotel. I gave him my bill and he promised to pay it once he got the money from his friend.

My take is that he told the guy, a week before kicking him out, that he needed him to pay the full per night cost from then on, not the full cost of the previous nights. So his last week was billed at $60 per night. A week would be $420 though, so I'm not sure where the extra $300 comes from. But it sounds to me like he wasn't going back on the other nights, just changing policy going forward. But re-reading that a few times, I'm not really sure now.

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:54 am

MekongMouse wrote:
General Mackevili wrote:And I agree this is a guy to look out for (hence the reason the thread has been approved to stay on CEO), but I just think it's wrong for the OP to change the price afterwards.

I think he should ONLY pay the OP for nights he agree to pay for at $30 a night.

He should NOT have to pay for the nights that were offered for free, and should NOT have to pay $60 a night for rooms that he agreed to pay $30 a night for.

That sounds scammish to me.

Am I being unreasonable here?
From OP:
I would now bill him for his entire stay as he now did have money.
My take is that he told the guy, a week before kicking him out, that he needed him to pay the full per night cost from then on, not the full cost of the previous nights. So his last week was billed at $60 per night. A week would be $420 though, so I'm not sure where the extra $300 comes from. But it sounds to me like he wasn't going back on the other nights, just changing policy going forward. But re-reading that a few times, I'm not really sure now.

I took the "entire stay" part as meaning he was going to now charge him for his "entire stay."

I asked the OP nicely to clarify exactly what he meant, but he chose not too.

Will you agree that if what I'm saying IS the case, that it's a little grimy of him?

MekongMouse · Post by **MekongMouse** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:55 am

Yes, absolutely.

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:57 am

MekongMouse wrote:Yes, absolutely.

Ok, cool. I hope I misunderstood RubberBaron.

thePeck · Post by **thePeck** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:36 am

General Mackevili wrote:
MekongMouse wrote:Yes, absolutely.
Ok, cool. I hope I misunderstood RubberBaron.

His, "I will now bill him for his entire stay" is unclear. Either: A) He let him slide on paying but still agreed to the bill him at the rate they discussed previously, which then became due. Or B) Since he was now on his feet, he deemed it necessary to charge him the full rate that was discounted before.

A) He a good man B) He's as slimy as the guy that ran.

So he never clarified, just kept saying, it's in his post, well it's not clear you idiot.

Soi Dog · Post by **Soi Dog** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:47 am

If the guy was so skint to the point of sleeping on the street, wouldn't it have made more sense for you, as an act of compassion, to arrange to temporarily set him up in some cheap, fan room guest house down the street instead of allowing him to stay at your higher-end place? ($60 per night IS higher end to me, anyway.)

YouTube · Post by **General Mackevili** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:46 am

rubberbaron wrote:Mac, just read the original post. It's not that hard to understand when you are sober.

thePeck wrote:
General Mackevili wrote:
MekongMouse wrote:Yes, absolutely.
Ok, cool. I hope I misunderstood RubberBaron.
His, "I will now bill him for his entire stay" is unclear. Either: A) He let him slide on paying but still agreed to the bill him at the rate they discussed previously, which then became due. Or B) Since he was now on his feet, he deemed it necessary to charge him the full rate that was discounted before.

A) He a good man B) He's as slimy as the guy that ran.

So he never clarified, just kept saying, it's in his post, well it's not clear you idiot.

Yeah, I was just asking for clarification, which he doesn't seem willing to offer.

I still wish he was right, and I wasn't sober right now.

And if he can clarify that he NEVER went back and charged him for the nights he originally said were free, and didn't bill him for $60 a night on rooms that he had previously said were $30, then I agree, he's a saint and unfortunately wasn't clear enough (to myself and others, obviously).

Either way, looks like I'm going to have to work on my story before I can stay at The Tamarind Hotel in Sihanoukville for $30 a night, LoL. :stir:

I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Re: I am looking for this man

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: