Sander Gulien found guilty of sexual intimidation

Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Postby newspaper » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:14 pm

Gulien has been found guilty by a judge.
newspaper
 

Postby Rubberduck » Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:24 pm

newspaper wrote:Gulien has been found guilty by a judge.

That doesn't matter to Rob. "Frank's word" is good enough for him. Even though Rob doesn't know if Frank Jonker is telling the truth. Me thinks Rob just *wants* to believe Frank, because he's a colleague of his and/or because Rob admires him and it's never pleasant to find out something rotten about your idol.
Rubberduck
 

Postby Robb_K » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:50 am

I don't know Sander Gulien personally, and he's not an idol of mine. I don't like to see any talented artist lose a career over the bad luck of having someone misrepresent him. You are correct that I don't really know if Gulien did what he was purported to have done, or if he didn't. Unless I was a personal witness to such action, I would never really know. I've known Frank Jonker for many years, and we have been work partners on several stories. He is as honest as anyone I know, and I can't imagine him saying publically that Sander Gulien was "framed" by a hacker just because Sander told him so. I have never known him to blur the truth or jump to unsubstantiated conclusions just to defend a colleague, or even a friend. The fact that Gulien was found guilty by a judge doesn't make it certain that Gulien was guilty of the charges. I've had other colleagues had the computers invaded, and had false (criminal) e-mails sent pretending to be them. It can happen to anyone. Of course, I don't know if it is really true, but I can't imagine the Frank Jonker I know, saying that is what happened, unless he's seen some proof of it. He just wouldn't do such a thing, risking his own reputation just to help a person who may be guilty.

I DIDN'T mean that "I'm glad to KNOW that Gulien is innocent.". I only meant that I'm glad to hear that he MIGHT NOT be guilty, after all. Of course, I will never know the actual truth. I have been found "guilty" (by all the people concerned) of doing something that I never did. (not a crime). I had no way to prove my innocence. So, I know how horrible that situation is. Maybe he was guilty. You can see in earlier threads that I do not hold with such terrible behaviour, and condemned it. I wouldn't want someone who is guilty to get away with being disrespectful to other people and reflecting badly upon his peers and employer. I hope, for the sake of Sanoma and their readers, and all of us that he is innocent (and also that it can be proven).

But your point is well taken. If Frank is sure enough to have made his statement, Gulien should have the evidence that his computer had an invasive programme operating in it. If a technical person could assess that, by having examined the computer, he could testify to the judge in the criminal case, and the verdict could be changed. I'll be curious to see if that happens, and wonder why such evidence wasn't presented (or didn't carry any weight) in the past court proceedings.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:02 am

Frank Jonker mixes up my situation of being wrongly accused of Ingmar Bomer, with the situation of Sander Gulien. I find that disturbing.

The Ingmar Bomer emails were written and sent by Mau Heymans to Don Rosa. As a joke that turned out of hand. Jonker compares that accusation with the accusation of Gulien, but the situations having nothing to do with each other.

I don't see why Frank Jonker mentions the confusion about Mau Heymans's secret jokes. And I see even less why Jonker sents his "truth" to McDuck moderators in private, notably to two youngsters, if it's just the truth he's writing. Doesn't the truth deserve to be told?

I'm very much into freedom of speech. Even if that would harm myself. I find Frank's private defensive complot-theory to McDuck-moderators too disturbing to be censored. Even less when my name is mentioned in it as being a victim like Sander Gulien. Here I know Jonker's opinion is wrong.

I've never had any trouble with passwords being stolen. Not even on an old ancient computer without firewall, which I used up to last year. Maybe it's because I know the danger of internet, and that people don't have privacy there anyway?
As far as I know, also Mau Heymans's irresponsible e-mail joke to Don Rosa has nothing to do with this theory by Frank. (As I'm told, Mau just used an mailbox of his girlfriend Inge, without her agreement.)

Furthermore, I fail to see the connection with hackers. Even if Frank is right. If a password gets stolen then why should that be kept a secret? I'd call the entire neighbourhood.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:07 am

Daniel73 wrote:The Ingmar Bomer emails were written and sent by Mau Heymans to Don Rosa. As a joke that turned out of hand. Jonker compares that accusation with the accusation of Gulien, but the situations having nothing to do with each other.

Last part should be: but the situations have nothing to do with each other.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Robb_K » Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:36 am

Daniël:

I know of cases in which some peoples' computers were invaded, and an invasive programme was uploaded. It worked out of the person's e-mail programme, and sent out e-mails to their entire adress lists, pretending to be the person whose computer was invaded. They sent x-rated or verbally abusive e-mails, or represented the invaded party in a bad way. We had a difficult to get rid of virus dissemenated through DCML (which I and many others received) due to one of our members being on the invaded party's (from Norway) adress list. I know also, that someone's computer can have spyware established in a computer's hard disc, sent and entering through a mail programme.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Stephan » Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:17 am

I'd agree with the criticism for the most part: why is Frank Jonker's explination so unpublic? He talks himself out of showing us the mail in which he, from what I've heard, urges the moderator of McDuck to censor all the news on Gulien's crime. Why? Is his email really that innocent?
Besides, as 'newspaper' says, Gulien has been found guilty by a judge. Which person would you believe more easily? A highly respected public judge, who doesn't takes any side? Or a storyteller (!) who wants to keep all the things he says unpublic, and who has lied before (about his age, for instance)?
The most questioning thing of all: Why oh why does this mail by Jonker has to be censored on the Dutch McDuck forum, and why should the one who posted this message be banned for a while? My only explination is that Jonker told sander and Martijn to keep this message secret. And as Daniël says: why should the truth be kept secret?
I think that Martijn Verhouwen, as well as Gulien and Jonker, are all behaving really weird. I would appreciate it if they would give us clarity, instead of bringing in more and more confusion.
Stephan
Stephan
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stephan

Previous

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron