There are three parts in this message: (1) my response to Georgios Paraskevopoulos' remarks toward me in his "Georgios vs. JoAnne" thread, (2) a proposal how to resolve the conflict, and (3) proposed actions to demonstrate good will and honor for a truce among involved parties.

First, I want to respond to Georgios Paraskevopoulos' statements which he has made in his "Georgios vs. JoAnne" thread, http://community.adlandpro.com/forums/1197189/ShowThread.aspx, on February 8, 9 & 15, 2009.

Georgios: In your thread you have claimed repeatedly that I accused you of being an e-banking scammer. I did not. This issue centers on your post on Sunday, January 10, 2009, on my Town Crier thread, which you addressed to two AdLand members that had posted on my forum with whom you had a dispute. For reference I will start with repeating your post below. You wrote:

"Now about pointing out a person. I used your name and that is to point out somebody. You say: I did not use any names. The result is same: My example to you. In a thread I have all information about all your e-banking cards (they may be empty lol) and I have there also usernames and passwords. I do not tell who the owners is but somewhere in a forum I write go to LINK X there are lots of money to get. Of course if the see your e-cards they have your name and if there is a picture identified. I did not use any name but I gave the information where to. Be sure all your e-banking accounts would be empty in few seconds and the all the visitors would know who you are. So that is not an argument for not pointing out a person."

Whatever you may have intended that to mean, it is easy to read as you saying that you have access to people's e-banking card user names and passwords and the ability to empty those accounts if you chose to do so, and that you were trying put a scare into people that you disagreed with. Because I saw that possible intent in your words, I consulted with some legal experts and cyber crime specialists to get their opinion. They confirmed that what you wrote could, indeed, be a veiled threat, that it should not be taken lightly, and that I and those to whom your post was addressed, as well as anyone else on AdLand who might feel threatened, would be well-advised to take certain steps to protect themselves from possible identity theft. This is not saying you had actually committed internet identity theft but that what you said could be taken as a threat or an intimidation, whether or not you had the ability or the intent to carry it out.

It is not much different from someone boarding a flight at an airport telling fellow passengers, loudly enough to be overheard by others, "What if I told you -- just as an example -- that there's a bomb on this plane and it will go off when I make a call from my cell phone." It may be an idle jest, but anyone who heard such a comment would be foolish not to notify security.

I was advised by those legal experts and cyber crime specialists to post a notice in my "AdLand Town Crier" thread to call attention to all AdLanders about potential risks to their credit card and bank accounts and to offer the advice from the legal experts and cyber crime specialists that I consulted on how anyone can protect his or her identity, credit card, and bank accounts. Accordingly, on Jan. 25, 2009, I posted a new thread on my forum,  "From Adland Town Crier -- Notification of A Veiled Threat on AdLandpro -- What To Do If You Feel That Your ID, Credit Cards and Bank Accounts May Be Compromised." http://community.adlandpro.com/forums/thread/1189404.aspx

The purpose of my Town Crier thread was to call attention to all AdLanders about potential risks to their credit card and bank accounts and to offer the advice from legal experts and cyber crime specialists that I consulted on how anyone can protect his or her identity, credit card, and bank accounts. The advice is appropriate for anyone anywhere who feels that the security of their identity or credit card and bank accounts may be at risk. It is not just specific to what you wrote on my AdLand thread. The advice includes providing information on possible threats to law enforcement authorities, and I followed that advice myself as any sensible and prudent person would do. This should not be a concern to you, as I did not report a crime but a possible veiled threat. All that means is that law enforcement authorities such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission will check to see whether you have ever, in the past, engaged in identity theft, and will keep a watchful eye just in case you do in the future.

The idea here is prevention, not prosecution for a crime not yet committed. If you have never been guilty of identity theft and have no intent to do so, then you have nothing to be worried about.

I would have expected, however, that if you had not meant what you wrote in the way the legal experts and cyber crime specialists I consulted said you may have been implying, that you say so. Why did you not immediately say, whether on your forum or on mine, something such as, "You misunderstood me. That is not what I meant. I do not have access to anyone's credit card information. I did not intend to suggest I had the ability to access anyone's accounts. I apologize for wording my post in a way that people construed as a possible threat. It was entirely unintentional."

To this day, you have never apologized for your words or retracted them or even said you were misunderstood. You never said anything to assuage the fears of those who felt threatened by what you wrote. You did finally proclaim, on February 15, 2009, that you are not an e-Banking scammer, but then I never said or implied that you were.

If you had been careful with your words in your post, there would not have been a Town Crier thread to warn the members of AdLand how to protect themselves if they felt threatened by your words. If you had apologized and recanted or explained that you were misunderstood, rather than launching a tirade against me, the issue may have been quickly resolved. Instead, you have seemed determined to create as much animosity toward me among AdLand members as possible. You have honestly not seemed concerned about your own reputation as you claim, but have demonstrated what comes across as a "Gotcha" attitude, gleefully latching onto what you saw as an opportunity to accuse me of something, and you have accused me of saying things I did not say.

The other thing you accuse me of repeatedly in your "Georgios vs. JoAnne" thread is saying that it was you who reported my threads to AdLand administration. That accusation is total nonsense. I never said it, I never thought it, I never suspected you, I never implied that it was you who did so, I never even brought up the subject (it was brought up by someone else's post on my thread), and moreover, I really don't care one way or the other who reported my threads to AdLand administration. As far as I am concerned, that is simply no big deal. So for you to go on and on about how I blamed you for doing that is ludicrous.
It is such a non-issue!

Interestingly, one of your friends, who's AdLand identity is Patricia B., made a post on your thread on Monday, Feb. 16, 2009, acknowledging that it was she who reported my threads to AdLand administration. Apparently you don't want anyone to know that because you don't want the issue to go away. You want to go right on blaming me for blaming you. So you promptly deleted her post! That would seem to indicate that your agenda has been not to protect your reputation but to damage mine.

You have now threatened me with a frivolous lawsuit, or, as you put it, juridical action, based on "evidence" that consists of your misinterpretation of your own on-line virtual opinion poll which, I understand, had all of 31 respondents. In the poll, you stated that I had reported you "as an e-banking scammer and untrustful," which is not true in the first place but your statement was obviously intended to bias the poll results. Then you asked whether people would, therefore, believe or not believe that you were an e-banking scammer, your intent being to provide "evidence" of your damaged reputation. In your faulty analysis of the results, you stated, in part, "51,6% (16/31 of  the voters) received the information as JoAnne's purpose was to expose me for being an e-banking scammer." (Emphasis added.) Yet none of your four questions asked respondents anything about what they thought my purpose was.That was a deliberate twisting of the poll results in an attempt to make the data better serve your purpose.

I don't know whether you are serious about actually bringing legal action, or bluffing, any more than I knew whether you were serious or bluffing about your having access to people's banking account information. If you are serious, you are welcome to try, but you will be wasting your time and money. If your reputation has been in any way damaged, it was not by anything I said but by your own words in your post on my "Town Crier" thread on Sunday, January 10, 2009, words which you still have refused to retract. No judge in any civilized country would give the time of day to a lawsuit as totally lacking in merit as you are contemplating.

Second, Georgios, you have stated on your forum that you want my suggestions on how this dispute between us can be resolved. In the interest of bringing this conflict to an end and restoring peace on AdLand, and for the overall good of the AdLand community, I would like to make the following suggestions:

You will post on your "Georgios vs. JoAnne" thread and also on my new thread, "From AdLand Town Crier -- Proposal to Resolve the Conflict between Georgios Paraskevopoulos and JoAnne Green" an apology, not to me but to Evelyn and Amanda and all AdLanders, for what you said to Evelyn and Amanda in your post on my "Town Crier" thread on Sunday, January 10, 2009.

In your apology, you will state clearly and without equivocation something on the order of the following: "My words were misunderstood. I do not have access to anyone's credit card information. I did not intend to suggest I had the ability to access anyone's accounts. I apologize for wording my post in a way that people construed as a possible threat. It was entirely unintentional."

Include also a statement something on the following order: "I now realize that JoAnne did not deliberately malign and defame me. I understand now how what I wrote may have easily been misunderstood, and I realize that JoAnne's only intent was to look out for her friends and other members of AdLand."

I will then respond to you by posting an acceptance of your apology on the behalf of my friends.

Third, to demonstrate good will and honor for a truce among involved parties, both this post and your apology, as outlined  above, as well as all previous posts by both of us pertaining to this conflict will remain online for 15 days. During that time, neither of us will make any further posts criticizing the other or making any reference to past disputes. Each of us will request that no one will make any comments on our threads to try to stir up or resurrect the controversy that we are attempting to resolve. If anyone does make such posts on any of your forum threads or my forum threads, we will each immediately delete those posts as soon as we become aware of them.

At the end of the 15-day period, you will delete all posts on any thread in your forums made by you or anyone else that make any reference to the "e-banking scammer" controversy. I will then, within 24 hours, delete your January 10, 2009, post on my "Town Crier" thread making reference to e-banking and passwords, and I also will delete all other subsequent posts on any of my threads, whether made by me or anyone else, making reference to you or a veiled threat by you.

We will both agree to put this issue behind us and not bring it up again, either directly or by inference, and we agree that going forward we will not engage in name calling, tirades or personal attacks against each other, either in person or by proxy.

If any of these conditions is not met, it will be considered a violation of the truce.

This present post and my acceptance of your apology will be my last and final words on this controversy, providing that you accept and comply with the terms of this proposal and do not violate the truce.

I hope you accept these terms so that we can put this controversy behind us, restore some civility to AdLand and move on. 

*** SPECIAL NOTE TO All READERS OF THIS THREAD: In order to resolve this conflict between Georgios Paraskevopoulos and JoAnne Green, the very next post of this thread is reserved for Georgios Paraskevopoulos to say whether or not he accept JoAnne Green's proposal to resolve the conflict.

I am asking all other members of AdLand to please restrain from posting your comments until Georgios has given his response here. If you do post a comment before Georgios has had a chance to respond, your post will be deleted.

After Georgios has posted his response, please read all related material carefully before you make your comments. Also, before posting any comments, please give thoughtful consideration to whether or not what you say will stir up or resurrect the controversy that we are attempting to resolve. If you aim to add fuel to the controversy, or if you continue to argue the points that we are now laying to rest, your post will be deleted. Also, please stay on topic and do not bring in any unrelated issues.

You all are requested to maintain a polite and professional tone in your comments. No name calling. No spewing hatred or tirades.

Please note that all of my regular Rules of Posting that apply to all of the threads of my forum apply also to this particular thread. Those Rules can be found at the following link: http://community.adlandpro.com/forums/thread/1179261.aspx
Thank you for your cooperation.***