# Darren Beaman Redux



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Will has a lengthy post on his blog about his (very, very bad) experience with Darren Beaman. Were Darren to have stayed under his rock, I wouldn't see the point of bringing him and his scurrilous conduct up again; but since he apparently is looking for new marks, um, clients, it's worthwhile reminding those who might have forgotten and informing those who are new to the forum just exactly what happened with him lest they fall prey to his charm.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

that's too bad...those Darren Beaman suits looked so nice in combo with some nice Carlo Franco Shirts and ties...

:devil::devil::devil:sorry...I couldnt resist:devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Gads....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't know what the legal tools may be. But it seems ol' Darren needs to be lured back across the Atlantic and hit with a group lawsuit. Also any and all possible remedies should be pursued in the UK. If all else fails I know some out of work lads expert in kneecapping.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

I've posted an outline of this case on the legals board of a UK site frequented by lawyers etc. Basically asking if there is any way a petition for bankruptcy/insolvency (if set up Ltd) could be pursued, or debt collection agency employed, by US citizens. If there are any replies that are usefull/relevant I'll post the link then.

I


----------



## josepidal (Jul 24, 2005)

Wait, I didn't quite understand that last post.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

josepidal said:


> Wait, I didn't quite understand that last post.


As I understand it, Infrasonic is inquiring about whether Beaman's company can be forced into receivership in the UK based on a lawsuit filed there by his jilted American customers and whether those jilted American customers can legally sic a debt collector on Beaman in the UK.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Bit appalling. But why pay some unknown tailor £2,000 for a suit if I can get one at a similar price at any Savile Row establishment anyway?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

At the time, Darren was charging 1,500 or maybe less.

And his multiple postings made him seem very approachable.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

And he had actually delivered a numbers completed projects which had received favorable reviews....Then the bottom droped.


----------



## emorel98 (Oct 9, 2005)

It might also be advisable to mention that he was pushed by this very forum at the CSE (along with Carlo Franco) and since they both took money from members without delivering any goods, what assurances people have when dealing with any other forum approved vendor.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

emorel98 said:


> It might also be advisable to mention that he was pushed by this very forum at the CSE (along with Carlo Franco) and since they both took money from members without delivering any goods, what assurances people have when dealing with any other forum approved vendor.


Well, most online vendors have turned out to be just fine, you included. Darren's problem was not the Internet, that's for sure.

And, as I noted on SF, without in any way defending Chuck, I think that what Chuck did and what Darren did are different.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

jcusey said:


> As I understand it, Infrasonic is inquiring about whether Beaman's company can be forced into receivership in the UK based on a lawsuit filed there by his jilted American customers and whether those jilted American customers can legally sic a debt collector on Beaman in the UK.


Correct.
Only one response so far, suggesting the small claims route;

https://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/questions/index.htm

You can check for any existing CCJ's here;
https://www.registry-trust.org.uk/ Need to pay a fee.

A brief check of companies house reveals the following.
Darren Beaman; Note this may be anybody with the same name, but only one hit came up and it is clothing related.
https://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/38bc6483aa2a67e7b0af4a8caea07f5d/compdetails
Savile Row
https://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/...ompanysearch?disp=res&frfsh=1185547775#result
Note the number of "removed" or disolved companies with savile row in the title. You can see why they were so keen on the trademarking now!

Again if you want to check details like downloading accounts you need to pay a fee. Site accessible 7am-12 midnight GMT.

I


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Bit more googling around found this;
https://www.debtcollectionservices.co.uk/fee2.htm

One of many that will offer this service, so shop around.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

emorel98 said:


> It might also be advisable to mention that he was pushed by this very forum at the CSE (along with Carlo Franco) and since they both took money from members without delivering any goods, what assurances people have when dealing with any other forum approved vendor.


 Your are correct in that Chuck Franke managed to convince me that Darren Beaman was an ideal candidate for first Collection of Sartorial Excellence. Until the show opened I had never met the man but Chuck and he were "good friends". Isn't hindsight a kick-in-the-ass?

When I learned some six months later that Beaman was not only absconding with customer funds but also that he had neither the means nor (especially) the intention to right the situation, I felt it incumbent upon me to do my best to stop him. If you were here at the time, you may remember this thread.

Since that first show, the vetting of CSE exhibitors - as much as possible in a cottage industry - has been an ongoing task.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

C'mon, guys...this thread is _boooring_. Its StyleForum sibbling is much more entertaining!:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Albert said:


> Bit appalling. But why pay some unknown tailor £2,000 for a suit if I can get one at a similar price at any Savile Row establishment anyway?


There are a number of attractions to an independent tailor. First is price, as many of them (including Beaman back when he had some reputation left) charge under the going rate for the big firms. Second is that working with an independent proprietor can be more personal and satisfying than being just another face in the crowd with one of the big boys. Third is that many people crave novelty and the ability to patronize those that nobody has ever heard of.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

At this point I was going to create an image in photoshop of CF and DB either muhahaha-ing in an underground lair or having mojitos together on some remote island. I decided that by doing so I would not be comporting myself to AAAC standards and abandoned the project.

Oddly enough, I wore a CF shirt today. It is white with a textured weave and certainly is nice.

https://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dscf0972xd6.jpg


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

Bob Loblaw said:


> Oddly enough, I wore a CF shirt today. It is white with a textured weave and certainly is nice.


You have a collector's item. I am under the impression that it was the expansion into shirts that did Chuck in.


----------



## bobbyball (Jul 20, 2005)

I met Darren Beaman a while back when he came along to a London gathering of AAAC forum members.

He was wearing a rather loud pinstripe peak lapel SB which shape-wise looked good, but I did not like his general manner. Slightly spivvy and uncooth that reminded of that Dads Army character who was always selling black market goods to the platoon.

He was with another chap whop was wearing one of his suits and he was, although in rather roundabout way, there on a sales pitch.

Like others have said, I would never step up to bespoke by using someone who has such a chequered career and whose prices are as high as the best on the Row.

If Row prices are too prohibitive for some, then I would thoroughly recommend the Soho tailors who are well established and make a fine product who IMHO have always been very friendly. I recall that Trilby was wearing a wonderful DB flannel suit that he had made by a small local tailor with an extra trouser and it was not much more in cost than a Blue Label Polo off the peg (correct me if I am wrong Trilby). I have had a midweight suit made by Chris Ruocco in KENTISH TOWN and he will discuss any look or form that you want. HE is very reasonable and I would highly recommend him to the forum.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

bobbyball said:


> He was wearing a rather loud pinstripe peak lapel SB which shape-wise looked good, but I did not like his general manner. Slightly spivvy and uncooth that reminded of that Dads Army character who was always selling black market goods to the platoon.


Private Walker? So he must have been good fun...


----------



## bobbyball (Jul 20, 2005)

Albert said:


> Private Walker? So he must have been good fun...


Yes, he was entertaining but I am not sure he knew how entertaining he was!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Teacher said:


> C'mon, guys...this thread is boooring. Its StyleForum sibbling is much more entertaining!


Well ... if it's a bit 'o spice you want ... the answer to the oft-asked question about Beaman's free reign elsewhere is: *Sometimes you have to pay the piper.*​ _(This is a re-post for those who might have forgotten the "gift")_:


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

^ I missed all of this past history but are you suggesting a domain registered for $6 per year would make FNB beholden to Darren Beamen?


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

If it is guilt by association, what about the AAAC events for sartorial excellence or whatever they were called? 


Hindsight is a wonderful thing...


AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> Hindsight is a wonderful thing...


No hindsight was required in the case of the domain name. Beaman's malfeasance was well-known at the time that domain name was registered. It was not at the time of the first CSE.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

jcusey said:


> No hindsight was required in the case of the domain name. Beaman's malfeasance was well-known at the time that domain name was registered. It was not at the time of the first CSE.


Maybe I am reading this wrong. Kabbaz couldn't see that Darren would make a mess of customer orders but FNB, knowing that Darren had done so, shouldn't accept a domain registered in his own name?

Would it have been better to leave it with Darren Beaman? Would you have left it with him? Why shouldn't FNB accept it from Darren? Someone explain the issue please.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

suds-okeefe said:


> Maybe I am reading this wrong. Kabbaz couldn't see that Darren would make a mess of customer orders but FNB, knowing that Darren had done so, shouldn't accept a domain registered in his own name?
> 
> Would it have been better to leave it with Darren Beaman? Would you have left it with him? Why shouldn't FNB accept it from Darren? Someone explain the issue please.


The fact that Beaman would have registered the domain for FNB suggests that there was a relationship of some sort between them beyond what either has acknowledged. Frankly, I don't know about you, but I would not want my name (even if it is just an internet screen name) associated with a known fraudster in any way.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

suds-okeefe said:


> Maybe I am reading this wrong. Kabbaz couldn't see that Darren would make a mess of customer orders but FNB, knowing that Darren had done so, shouldn't accept a domain registered in his own name?
> 
> Would it have been better to leave it with Darren Beaman? Would you have left it with him? Why shouldn't FNB accept it from Darren? Someone explain the issue please.


Have a look at the latest FNB or SF threads relating to DB and FNB's "vigorous" defence of his "non-judgemental" position.
The above screenshot puts a whole different spin on it (assuming it is genuine:devil: )

I


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> No hindsight was required in the case of the domain name. Beaman's malfeasance was well-known at the time that domain name was registered. It was not at the time of the first CSE.


forgive me if I take your comments with a grain of salt...

AZTEC


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Infrasonic said:


> Have a look at the latest FNB or SF threads relating to DB and FNB's "vigorous" defence of his "non-judgemental" position.
> The above screenshot puts a whole different spin on it (assuming it is genuine:devil: )
> 
> I


I have read them. A whole different spin on what? I can see that FNB is getting linked by Kabbaz to Darren from a single screenie with no date on it. Somehow this is supposed to open up a whole world of possibilities?

Anyhoo, I was made curious by you mentioning the screenie's validness and checked it out at the above url and www.filmnoirbuff.com is registered to an entirely different party below when you type in "filmnoirbuff.com":

https://www.opensrs.org/cgi-bin/whois

So maybe you are right and the one posted is photoshop.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> forgive me if I take your comments with a grain of salt...


Everything that I have written is based on facts in the public record. If you actually wanted to check them instead of making snide insinuations, you could.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> Everything that I have written is based on facts in the public record. If you actually wanted to check them instead of making snide insinuations, you could.


You may characterize my comment as snide, but I sense an animosity from you that does little to help the case you are making. I'll continue to take them with a grain of salt thanks...


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> You may characterize my comment as snide, but I sense an animosity from you that does little to help the case you are making. I'll continue to take them with a grain of salt thanks...


Why? This information is available here on AAAC and StyleForum, unless some of it was lost. I remember all of this well, and it happened as stated.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Teacher said:


> Why? This information is available here on AAAC and StyleForum, unless some of it was lost. I remember all of this well, and it happened as stated.


So ... ya, got yer sho'nuff, spice now? 

BTW Aztec and Suds ... if one simply writes to tucows or IANA they will be happy to reply with the history of any domain name. It would be nice if either or both of you did so and then corrected your insinuations.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

suds-okeefe said:


> I have read them. A whole different spin on what? I can see that FNB is getting linked by Kabbaz to Darren from a single screenie with no date on it. Somehow this is supposed to open up a whole world of possibilities?
> 
> Anyhoo, I was made curious by you mentioning the screenie's validness and checked it out at the above url and www.filmnoirbuff.com is registered to an entirely different party below:
> 
> ...


Yeah I did the same as soon as I saw that screenshot. 2006 it was registered, so quite feasible for it to have been transferred from the previous registrar.....don't know, staying out of this bit of the fight:icon_smile_wink:

Back to DB.
These links might prove interesting...

https://www.ukdata.com/numbers/04740183.html

Note the dissolved companies, notice to strike off, change of director/company secretary notifications....all classic signs of a "dodgy" company I'm afraid, in this case twice

I have an accountant friend who can get free access to the nitty gritty details, I'll see what I can come up with.

I


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> So ... ya, got yer sho'nuff, spice now?
> 
> BTW Aztec and Suds ... if one simply writes to tucows or IANA they will be happy to reply with the history of any domain name. It would be nice if either or both of you did so and then corrected your insinuations.


Maybe it's accidental but your post made it look like it was still registered to Darren Beaman. I thought you meant it was his site. There are so many reasons why people register domain names, I don't see how it has to be a sinister one. Can Andy say he did no business or had no association with this tailor after his "malfeasance" was generally know?

Unless you posted that screenie to see if people get the wrong impression, I don't know why I am making an insinuation?

Another thing. You posted this screenie, so it follows you need to offer proof of a conclusion to prevent it to be an open ended insinuation.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

suds-okeefe said:


> Maybe it's accidental but your post made it look like it was still registered to Darren Beaman. I thought you meant it was his site. There are so many reasons why people register domain names, I don't see how it has to be a sinister one. Can Andy say he did no business or had no association with this tailor after his "malfeasance" was generally know?
> 
> Unless you posted that screenie to see if people get the wrong impression, I don't know why I am making an insinuation?
> 
> Another thing. You posted this screenie, so it follows you need to offer proof of a conclusion to prevent it to be an open ended insinuation.


It is also well known that Darren registered the domain name but transfered it to FNB himself. It was a gift. This all happened _after_ the tidal wave of complaints.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Teacher said:


> It is also well known that Darren registered the domain name but transfered it to FNB himself. It was a gift. This all happened _after_ the tidal wave of complaints.


Link please?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

The answer can be found here: https://www.domaintools.com/hosting-history



suds-okeefe said:


> Maybe it's accidental but your post made it look like it was still registered to Darren Beaman. I thought you meant it was his site.


 Please re-read my post. I clearly state that this is a *re-post* for those who have forgotten. The reason claimed at the time was that Darren bought it as a gift for the owner of FNB. If you accept that rather than the obvious creation of a vehicle for co-promotion, please contact me. I have a beautiful, slightly used bridge in which you might be interested.



suds-okeefe said:


> Unless you posted that screenie to see if people get the wrong impression, I don't know why I am making an insinuation?


 You are making an accusation because you and/or aztec stated that it might be a Photoshop-created screen shot. I don't particularly appeciate accusations of malfeasance. Either back up your post or withdraw it. I have provided you with the tools above.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

suds-okeefe said:


> Link please?


Ibid.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The answer can be found here: https://www.domaintools.com/hosting-history
> 
> Please re-read my post. I clearly state that this is a *re-post* for those who have forgotten. The reason claimed at the time was that Darren bought it as a gift for the owner of FNB. If you accept that rather than the obvious creation of a vehicle for co-promotion, please contact me. I have a beautiful, slightly used bridge in which you might be interested.
> 
> You are making an accusation because you and/or aztec stated that it might be a Photoshop-created screen shot. I don't particularly appeciate accusations of malfeasance. Either back up your post or withdraw it. I have provided you with the tools above.


I asked Teacher for the original link. You made an original statement, not me. If I don't believe what you say as a given that can hardly be an insinuation on my part. At any rate, I am not sure I understand what you mean by proof of co-promotion?

I don't see why I have to do research when you don't state your case in a convincing way. I have contacted you by posting here. I didn't mean YOU made the screenie in photoshop and I don't think belittling me is making your facts and conclusions any clearer.

Look, I don't care that much to get into some big brew up. But if you want people to believe what you infer and they cannot understand your reasoning it makes sense that you would want to connect the dots.

And I am not sure I understand "malfeasance."


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You are making an accusation because you and/or aztec stated that it might be a Photoshop-created screen shot. I don't particularly appeciate accusations of malfeasance. Either back up your post or withdraw it. I have provided you with the tools above.


Kabbaz could you pls read my exact words in this thread and withdraw YOUR insinuation that I might have said that the screen shot was a photoshop.

Also, please point out exactly where I support an accusation of malfeasance which you wormily insinuate.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> You may characterize my comment as snide, but I sense an animosity from you that does little to help the case you are making. I'll continue to take them with a grain of salt thanks...


It's easy to check the veracity of what I have written. You choose not to do so, instead making yet another slimy insinuation that I am being less than honest or forthcoming. You say that my tone doesn't help me make my case. Frankly, I doubt that God himself coming down from Heaven and telling you that I am correct would satisfy you.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

*CUM GRANO SALIS*



jcusey said:


> It's easy to check the veracity of what I have written. You choose not to do so, instead making yet another slimy insinuation that I am being less than honest or forthcoming. You say that my tone doesn't help me make my case. Frankly, I doubt that God himself coming down from Heaven and telling you that I am correct would satisfy you.


I think you are being a little thin skinned. Maybe your definition of "grain of salt" makes you think I am calling you less than honest or that I am insinuating you are a liar.

This is not the case. My understanding of the phrase means NOT to take something at face value without some skepticism, to quote Wikipedia: "In common parlance, if something is to be taken with a grain of salt, it means that a measure of healthy skepticism should be applied regarding a claim; that it should not be blindly accepted and believed without any doubt or reservation".

It is not the veracity of your claims that is an issue for me. The issue for me is not to blindly infer guilt by association, which is the main point of my original post.

I look forward to your reply but would appreciate it if you could keep your tone civil. And I look forward to a correction from Kabbaz.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> I think you are being a little thin skinned. Maybe your definition of "grain of salt" makes you think I am calling you less than honest or that I am insinuating you are a liar.


Of course you are insinuating that I am a liar. That you attempt to argue that you are not is disingenuous and sleazy.



> It is not the veracity of your claims that is an issue for me. The issue for me is not to blindly infer guilt by association, which is the main point of my original post.


It is also disingenuous for you to claim that the issue is guilt by association in light of the facts of the Beaman/FNB domain name registration. But since you are unconcerned with the facts and unwilling to do anything other than cast aspersions about my honesty, this doesn't surprise me.



> I look forward to your reply but would appreciate it if you could keep your tone civil. And I look forward to a correction from Kabbaz.


It's amusing that you accuse me of being thin-skinned in light of what you have written about Alex and that you urge me to be civil in light of your incivility toward me and toward him.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

I will not bother to reply to your diatribe.

AZTEC


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

suds-okeefe said:


> Link please?


I don't get it. Why do you need a link? AK has posted the registration information which proves Beaman paid for and registered FNB's site. The site is now administered by FNB. The site has been running since spring of 2006, LONG after the scat hit the fan concerning Beaman and his business practices. The site was registered a couple of months before that, still LONG after said scat-scattering. This suggests some kind of relationship between them, despite the fact that FNB knew fully well of Beamangate. (FNB had, by that time, been locked from AAAC for unrelated offenses.) What on Earth can possibly be missing for you???


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

This:



AZTEC said:


> I think you are being a little thin skinned. Maybe your definition of "grain of salt" makes you think I am calling you less than honest or that I am insinuating you are a liar [. . . .] It is not the veracity of your claims that is an issue for me.


...contradicts this:



> This is not the case. My understanding of the phrase means NOT to take something at face value without some skepticism [. . . .]The issue for me is not to blindly infer guilt by association


It seems you are saying you don't doubt him, and yet you are skeptical. This is like saying "I like you, but I'm not fond of you." That's certainly the vibe I'm getting from your posts. Perhaps clarification would settle this.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> Kabbaz could you pls read my exact words in this thread and withdraw YOUR insinuation that I might have said that the screen shot was a photoshop.


I did not *insinuate* anything. I *stated *that either you *or* sudsy made such a statement.



AZTEC said:


> Also, please point out exactly where I support an accusation of malfeasance which you wormily insinuate.
> 
> AZTEC


I never directed such an accusation to you. I was addressing the soapy one. Nonetheless, your insinuations of *guilt* do come to the fore here:


AZTEC said:


> If it is guilt by association, what about the AAAC events for sartorial excellence or whatever they were called?


 Whether you know it or not - and I would _take it with a grain of salt_ if you were to claim ignorance - I am the producer of a Collection of Sartorial Excellence.

* Your turn: *

Why would one write 488 posts on a forum where one considered the factual statements of the two Senior Moderators to be of suspect veracity?


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

double post deleted


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

I think my words are clear enough.

I state clearly that it is not the case that I am calling Cusey less than honest or that I am insinuating that he is a liar. He chooses not to believe this.

I think I take much of what is written on internet message boards with a grain of salt. I'm happy to engage in discussion but I won't get drawn further into a slinging match.

AZTEC


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I
> Whether you know it or not - and I would _take it with a grain of salt_ if you were to claim ignorance - I am the producer of a Collection of Sartorial Excellence.


you seem to miss the very point I am making...that I am skeptical of claims of guilt by association. This applies to you as well, much as I might dislike your bullying tone..

AZTEC


----------



## drrobert (Sep 24, 2006)

*My debt to Darren Beaman*

Darren Beaman's business practices, as demonstrated by his infamous dealings in cheating some AAAC members out of their hard-earned money, certainly get no endorsement from me as honesty should and must be the only policy in the business world. His banishment from this site for that behavior was unequivocally the requisite punishment to be meted out to him. However, when approximately one year ago I saw pictures of that that beautiful , blue 3-piece suit as well as other garments he had made on this website, that was the seminal event in getting me addicted to AAAC. That blue suit, as well as the accompanying gorgeous , fur trimmed blue overcoat , I still consider to be some of the most impressive tailoring I have ever seen just from a visual perspective and unquestionably triggered my desire to learn all I could about men's clothing from AAAC. The tragedy of Darren Beaman is that here is or was a person of apparently exceptional skill who could have had a stellar name in the tailoring world but for the egregious defects in his personal character .Shakespeare said it best when he said, " The fault, dear Brutus ,lies not in our stars ,but in ourselves." drrobert

"The apparel oft proclaims the man." Shakespeare


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

His work was very uneven. For example, he delivered a lopsided jacket to one customer that was appallingly bad. When the poor guy had the temerity to complain about in the fora, he was pilloried by Beaman's claque of supporters, who accused him of trying slander and frame Beaman, etc.


----------



## Brax (Dec 3, 2005)

-Aztec

Quit while you're behind. I have no insight into the Beamon affair but I have common sense and logic. It is clear that your and Sud's arguments are groundless and unconvincing. Your distinction between telling someone that you are taking his word with a grain of salt but that you do not doubt his honesty is laughable.


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

I've been hearing about Darren Beaman ever since I joined this board, just over two years ago. And I'm tired of it. He's a crook -- fine. I know. His name has so filled the archives that if anyone ever does a search for him, that prospective customer will fly far, far away. Enough already, I say.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

In politics I have found that the old adage "any publicity is good publicity" almost always holds true, with some notable exceptions. I have no dog in this fight, so I have no personal knowledge one way or another about any of this, but I can say with absolute certainty that I will stick with my local Italian tailor if I ever want a custom-made suit or coat (he already does all of my alterations) and pass on the gentleman in question. If even a fraction of what has been posted on the various forums is true, this is tragic for those whose money was "stolen" from them.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

Brax said:


> -Aztec
> 
> Quit while you're behind. I have no insight into the Beamon affair but I have common sense and logic. It is clear that your and Sud's arguments are groundless and unconvincing. Your distinction between telling someone that you are taking his word with a grain of salt but that you do not doubt his honesty is laughable.


Thank you for letting me know you have common sense and logic...it's possible I might have missed that point if you hadn't pointed it out.

It seems you are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted. Please go back and read my initial and following posts. I happen to believe that Beaman's behaviour was/is reprehensible and anyone not convinced of that should read will's blog and the rebuttal from thomas mahon.

The point I am making (which seems to escape you) is that I do not tar FNB with the same brush and I question the motivations of those that do. Hence I take their comments with a grain of salt.

AZTEC


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> The point I am making (which seems to escape you) is that I do not tar FNB with the same brush and I question the motivations of those that do. AZTEC


I couldn't agree more, he deserves his own set of bespoke brushes. His psychosis make Beaman's shortcomings seem downright adorable.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

How true the old adage that you learn more about the true nature of someone's character when he describes the character of another!


AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> How true the old adage that you learn more about the true nature of someone's character when he describes the character of another!


Indeed.

You keep repeating the line about being against guilt by association, but I don't think that you understand what the phrase means. There is a difference between, say, having dinner with a mobster and being caught giving a mobster a boost up into the back of a truck with a bag of stolen merchandise.

To be blunt, Beaman was banned from AA. FNB was banned from AA. FNB needed a new platform to bloviate from and a draw to drive traffic to that platform. Beaman needed a new platform to drum up new deposits. Is it any wonder that they found each other?


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

CPVS said:


> I've been hearing about Darren Beaman ever since I joined this board, just over two years ago. And I'm tired of it. He's a crook -- fine. I know. His name has so filled the archives that if anyone ever does a search for him, that prospective customer will fly far, far away. Enough already, I say.


You might know, but many people are new to the forums or have short memories. As I wrote originally, I wouldn't bring it up if he were merely hiding under a rock somewhere dodging the clients that he has bilked. The fact that he is apparently trying to drum up more customers puts the matter in a completely different light.

If you have grown tired of Beaman talk, avoid those threads discussing Beaman.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> Indeed.
> 
> You keep repeating the line about being against guilt by association, but I don't think that you understand what the phrase means. There is a difference between, say, having dinner with a mobster and being caught giving a mobster a boost up into the back of a truck with a bag of stolen merchandise.
> 
> To be blunt, Beaman was banned from AA. FNB was banned from AA. FNB needed a new platform to bloviate from and a draw to drive traffic to that platform. Beaman needed a new platform to drum up new deposits. Is it any wonder that they found each other?


as a point of clarification, is it correct to assume your animosity to FNB preceded your animosity to Beaman?

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> as a point of clarification, is it correct to assume your animosity to FNB preceded your animosity to Beaman?


Animosity has nothing to do with it, your attempts to portray the purpose of this thread as a mere personal squabble notwithstanding.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> Animosity has nothing to do with it, your attempts to portray the purpose of this thread as a mere personal squabble notwithstanding.


Thank you.

AZTEC


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> How true the old adage that you learn more about the true nature of someone's character when he describes the character of another!AZTEC


So by your own measures, that should make it case closed on the dubious character of everyone who has posted in the "inane thread of day", then, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

aportnoy said:


> So by your own measures, that should make it case closed on the dubious character of everyone who has posted in the "inane thread of day", then, wouldn't you agree?


I am not familiar with the thread you are referring to and the search function did not help. can you provide a link?

AZTEC


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> I am not familiar with the thread you are referring to and the search function did not help. can you provide a link?
> 
> AZTEC


Try searching in your own backyard.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

aportnoy said:


> Try searching in your own backyard.


You have well and truly lost me. It is hard to provide a response to your question if you are not willing to provide the information you are referring to.

AZTEC


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> You have well and truly lost me. It is hard to provide a response to your question if you are not willing to provide the information you are referring to.
> 
> AZTEC


AZTEC,

PM sent.

-AP


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

On FNB's website, there's a thread/running gag called, "Inane Post Of The Day", which oddly enough, usually features comments from some of those with whom you're currently...disagreeing. Over there, they pretty much take the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise really good forum like AAAC, and just discuss the factual matters at hand. They have fun in the Ciro's circa 1945-55 kind of way, as opposed to the "cheerio, pip-pip, dead Empire, Anglophilia" nonsense that seems to permeate this board, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

aportnoy said:


> AZTEC,
> 
> PM sent.
> 
> -AP


thank you for your PM. I assumed you were referring to a thread on this forum. I only rarely visit FNB's website site.

My response to your question? Individual postings on the thread do not necessarily reflect the character of FNB just as individual postings here do not reflect the character of Andy.

Reading the thread certainly makes you feel like you are passing the scene of a road accident, you want to look away but a morbid fascination draws you in. Some of the posts are dreck and others are laugh-out-loud funny.

AZTEC


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

jtm said:


> On FNB's website, there's a thread/running gag called, "Inane Post Of The Day", which oddly enough, usually features comments from some of those with whom you're currently...disagreeing. Over there, they pretty much take the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise really good forum like AAAC, and just discuss the factual matters at hand. They have fun in the Ciro's circa 1945-55 kind of way, as opposed to the "cheerio, pip-pip, dead Empire, Anglophilia" nonsense that seems to permeate this board, blah, blah, blah.


They've even mentioned _me_...I've _seen_ it!


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

jtm said:


> On FNB's website, there's a thread/running gag called, "Inane Post Of The Day", which oddly enough, usually features comments from some of those with whom you're currently...disagreeing. Over there, they pretty much take the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise really good forum like AAAC, and just discuss the factual matters at hand. They have fun in the Ciro's circa 1945-55 kind of way, as opposed to the "cheerio, pip-pip, dead Empire, Anglophilia" nonsense that seems to permeate this board, blah, blah, blah.


This is correct if you redefine "tak[ing] the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise good forum like AAAC" to mean "giving a haven and a platform to egomaniacs, thieves, psychotics, and other malefactors where no lie is too egregious to be disbelieved, no slander too vile to be censured, and no misinformation too blatant to be celebrated."

Edit: And let's not forget the matter at hand: Darren Beaman, who has ripped off many former clients by taking deposits for suits that he never completed and who has never admitted his error or attempted to make amends, is using FNB's website to drum up new marks, um, sources for deposits, with at least the tacit approval of the website's proprietor, who knows or should know Beaman's history and with whom Beaman has a longstanding relationship of some sort.


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> thank you for your PM. I assumed you were referring to a thread on this forum. I only rarely visit FNB's website site.
> 
> My response to your question? Individual postings on the thread do not necessarily reflect the character of FNB just as individual postings here do not reflect the character of Andy.
> 
> ...


Agree to disagree on the first point, I believe that they do very much reflect FNB's character (or lack thereof) as this is #2 traffic thread on his entire site. In fact, you could argue that that thread is the entire site.

Completely agree on the second point, an especially nasty accident, at that.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> This is correct if you redefine "tak[ing] the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise good forum like AAAC" to mean "giving a haven and a platform to egomaniacs, thieves, psychotics, and other malefactors where no lie is too egregious to be disbelieved, no slander too vile to be censured, and no misinformation too blatant to be celebrated."


ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity.


You haven't seen any evidence because you don't want to see any. As I wrote yesterday, Jesus himself could come down from Heaven and confirm everything, and you would still be skeptical.

Get back to me if you actually want to discuss this in good faith.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

jcusey said:


> You haven't seen any evidence because you don't want to see any. As I wrote yesterday, Jesus himself could come down from Heaven and confirm everything, and you would still be skeptical.


Agreed, AZTEC you are tiring my friend

MrR


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

jcusey said:


> This is correct if you redefine "tak[ing] the starch out of the stuffy bs that clouds an otherwise good forum like AAAC" to mean "giving a haven and a platform to egomaniacs, thieves, psychotics, and other malefactors where no lie is too egregious to be disbelieved, no slander too vile to be censured, and no misinformation too blatant to be celebrated."


And that description is somehow different from AAAC how, exactly?
Do the inmates run the crazy house over there? Sure!
The only difference, of course, being that they know that they're nuts, and therefore don't even think about taking themselves anywhere near as seriously as some of the people over here seem to. They revel in their insanity, licentiousness and outright Rat Pack sluttiness, all the while posting awesome pics and exchanging info about tailors, etc., and all of the false info is usually sorted out by page 2 of any thread anyway, so that's no big deal.


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

AZTEC said:


> ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity.
> 
> AZTEC


Yes, Aztec, methinks they doth protest too much, too.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Agreed, AZTEC you are tiring my friend
> 
> MrR


well....difficult to know what to say to that. It is not my intention to tire your friend.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

jtm said:


> And that description is somehow different from AAAC how, exactly?


I dare you to try to find instances of the kind filth that is the stock in trade of FNB's forum. Isolated examples, maybe, but dozens per day as is common over there? No. There is no equivalence.



> Do the inmates run the crazy house over there? Sure!
> The only difference, of course, being that they know that they're nuts, and therefore don't even think about taking themselves anywhere near as seriously as some of the people over here seem to. They revel in their insanity, licentiousness and outright Rat Pack sluttiness, all the while posting awesome pics and exchanging info about tailors, etc., and all of the false info is usually sorted out by page 2 of any thread anyway, so that's no big deal.


Awesome pics? I must have missed that. Exchanging information about tailors? I would hardly consider some of the egregious lies written there to qualify as "information," but consider that exchanging information about tailors is one of the primary topics of conversation here and on StyleForum. And the misinformation is never sorted out by page 2.

Once again, let's not lose focus here: my primary reason in starting this thread was to bring attention to the fact that Darren Beaman has ripped many clients off and is attempting to drum up more "business" using FNB's forum despite the fact that he has never attempted to make whole those whom he has cheated.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

jtm said:


> Yes, Aztec, methinks they doth protest too much, too.


FNB's website exists to make fun of this one. Dozens of threads and thousands of posts there do nothing but ridicule and slander this site and those who post on it. One thread over here that has something to do with FNB's website, and WE protest too much? Spare me.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

AZTEC said:


> ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity.
> 
> AZTEC


This is getting just stupid. You keep proclaiming your skepticism, and yet you refuse to discuss facts. jcusey, I, and others have tried _very hard_ to clearly point out the facts of the case, and you seem not to have read our thoughtfully rendered posts. If you ignore the facts, how can we even discuss your skepticism.?



jtm said:


> And that description is somehow different from AAAC how, exactly?
> Do the inmates run the crazy house over there? Sure!
> The only difference, of course, being that they know that they're nuts, and therefore don't even think about taking themselves anywhere near as seriously as some of the people over here seem to. They revel in their insanity, licentiousness and outright Rat Pack sluttiness, all the while posting awesome pics and exchanging info about tailors, etc., and all of the false info is usually sorted out by page 2 of any thread anyway, so that's no big deal.


No, actually, they take themselves quite seriously. And it sounds like you would be better suited over there.



jtm said:


> Yes, Aztec, methinks they doth protest too much, too.


Twisting a quote from Shakespeare doesn't really make you sound witty. It's been overdone. Thanks for playing anyway.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

jcusey said:


> FNB's website exists to make fun of this one. Dozens of threads and thousands of posts there do nothing but ridicule and slander this site and those who post on it. One thread over here that has something to do with FNB's website, and WE protest too much? Spare me.


Let's also not forget that they have cute nicknames for many of the posters here and on StyleForum. These nicknames, all kidding aside, are _really_ childish...I used to make things like that up when I was about eight. Maybe ten. Of course, if one brings up the fact that they use these nicknames, one would be told to lighten up, that they're just having fun, but that doesn't make it any less childish.

(And if _that_ doesn't get me a mention over there, nothing will!)


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

jcusey said:


> I dare you to try to find instances of the kind filth that is the stock in trade of FNB's forum. Isolated examples, maybe, but dozens per day as is common over there? No. There is no equivalence.
> Just because you guys try to use more stupidly formal, or as BCL would say, prissy language doesn't make the lies, especially about the "superiority" of the merchandise of those British sacred cows, any less so.
> 
> Awesome pics? I must have missed that. Exchanging information about tailors? I would hardly consider some of the egregious lies written there to qualify as "information," but consider that exchanging information about tailors is one of the primary topics of conversation here and on StyleForum. And the misinformation is never sorted out by page 2.
> ...


DB ripped off a bunch of people. 
WE GET IT!


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

> No, actually, they take themselves quite seriously. And it sounds like you would be better suited over there.


 I've never seen them do that. Speaking of egregious lies....Even when they vehemently disagree, they get over it, call it a day and get a highball, laughing all the way to the bar.



> Twisting a quote from Shakespeare doesn't really make you sound witty. It's been overdone. Thanks for playing anyway.


*Yawn*
I wasn't going for wit.
I don't have to spend my days overcompensating for...that list's too long.
Tell him what he's won, Johnny!


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

AZTEC,
This whole "dustup" isn't even about DB. Sounds to me like they're far more pissed because you refuse to take their word as law.

Having a gigantic hissy fit because not everyone's buying their line unquestioned is far more childish than any Internet username.


----------



## jtm (Jul 12, 2007)

jcusey said:


> FNB's website exists to make fun of this one. Dozens of threads and thousands of posts there do nothing but ridicule and slander this site and those who post on it. One thread over here that has something to do with FNB's website, and WE protest too much? Spare me.


Sure, they poke fun the absurdly arrogant posts of AAAC's self-appointed Master Gurus, and God knows, the MG's deserve it. The thread continues because so many here give them so much great material every single day. 
Sacred cows be damned.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

jtm said:


> Sure, they poke fun the absurdly arrogant posts of AAAC's self-appointed Master Gurus, and God knows, the MG's deserve it. The thread continues because so many here give them so much great material every single day.
> Sacred cows be damned.


Oh, so you acknowledge that the filth and slime that is currency of the realm at FNB's website is unique to it and not present here. So at least there is some progress.

Frankly, it seems like you're more comfortable over there, and I encourage you to stay there. You're much too trollish to be at home here.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

jtm said:


> AZTEC,
> This whole "dustup" isn't even about DB. Sounds to me like they're far more pissed because you refuse to take their word as law.
> 
> Having a gigantic hissy fit because not everyone's buying their line unquestioned is far more childish than any Internet username.


Of course it's about Beaman (and, tangentially, about his enablers). Just because you want to change the subject because it's uncomfortable to you and your sacred cows doesn't mean that the rest of us have to.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

jtm said:


> AZTEC,
> This whole "dustup" isn't even about DB. Sounds to me like they're far more pissed because you refuse to take their word as law.
> 
> Having a gigantic hissy fit because not everyone's buying their line unquestioned is far more childish than any Internet username.


That's very interesting. You have nothing new to add, so you resort to attacking our attitude. It's that last refuge of those who don't have a leg to stand on. Verifiable facts have been posted here, but you don't address those; I assume it's because you have no argument. Nothing. No, I don't expect you to take my word as law, but if you're going to participate on a grown-up forum, you should learn to address _facts._

Now, go sulking back to FNB.com and complain about us. And make up a good nickname for me...I'm sure it will make you happy.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The answer can be found here: https://www.domaintools.com/hosting-history
> 
> Please re-read my post. I clearly state that this is a *re-post* for those who have forgotten. The reason claimed at the time was that Darren bought it as a gift for the owner of FNB. If you accept that rather than the obvious creation of a vehicle for co-promotion, please contact me. I have a beautiful, slightly used bridge in which you might be interested.
> 
> You are making an accusation because you and/or aztec stated that it might be a Photoshop-created screen shot. I don't particularly appeciate accusations of malfeasance. Either back up your post or withdraw it. I have provided you with the tools above.


I checked this domaintools.com out and you have to pay $15 to get the information. The domain name itself only costs $6 from tucows. Did you actually pay money to investigate FNB? If so, you have the chain of ownership?

Co-promotion sounds very conspiracy like but I wonder if it really means much.

Where is the original post that this *re-post* is based on?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

AZTEC said:


> My response to your question? Individual postings on the thread do not necessarily reflect the character of FNB just as individual postings here do not reflect the character of Andy.


Well, if you insult someone here, you are likely to get banned. On FNB, it seems to be the whole business.



AZTEC said:


> Reading the thread certainly makes you feel like you are passing the scene of a road accident, you want to look away but a morbid fascination draws you in.


The whole FNB forum has that sort of feel for me. Like watching "Braindead": a mixture of disgust and fascinated disbelief.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

AZTEC said:


> as a point of clarification, is it correct to assume your animosity to FNB preceded your animosity to Beaman?
> 
> AZTEC


An even better question is whether FNB's banning preceeded Darren Beaman's? What would that make us think about the screenie as evidence?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

jtm said:


> And that description is somehow different from AAAC how, exactly?
> Do the inmates run the crazy house over there? Sure!
> The only difference, of course, being that they know that they're nuts, and therefore don't even think about taking themselves anywhere near as seriously as some of the people over here seem to. They revel in their insanity, licentiousness and outright Rat Pack sluttiness, all the while posting awesome pics and exchanging info about tailors, etc., and all of the false info is usually sorted out by page 2 of any thread anyway, so that's no big deal.


All these starting members popping out of the ground at this topic are... ...a really big mystery.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

jcusey said:


> FNB's website exists to make fun of this one. Dozens of threads and thousands of posts there do nothing but ridicule and slander this site and those who post on it. One thread over here that has something to do with FNB's website, and WE protest too much? Spare me.


You mention frequency but I have never seen anything approaching this degree of anger or personal attack. People here like yourself have called FNBers psychos, thieves, filth. I think this is closer to slander.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Really?

That site devotes almost all of its posts to trashing this site and StyleForum.

It's a shame, because there is some cool stuff there, too. 

A lot of people who seem to be bitter with these clothing sites (because they were banned or not appropriately honored or whatever have axes to grind and a place to grind their axes.

Whatever turns their bitter selves on, I guess.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

jcusey said:


> There are a number of attractions to an independent tailor. First is price, as many of them (including Beaman back when he had some reputation left) charge under the going rate for the big firms. Second is that working with an independent proprietor can be more personal and satisfying than being just another face in the crowd with one of the big boys. Third is that many people crave novelty and the ability to patronize those that nobody has ever heard of.


jcusey,

I might be extremely risk-averse and my income isn't particularly high. This is why I would never drop GBP 2k at some individual tailor but rather on a long-standing establishment which can be held accountable.

But that's just my sentiment. I agree that the novelty of an independent tailor adds some spice that might not be found with the big houses.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

I like bacon.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

suds-okeefe said:


> An even better question is whether FNB's banning preceeded Darren Beaman's? What would that make us think about the screenie as evidence?


Beaman was banned before FNB was.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Albert said:


> I might be extremely risk-averse and my income isn't particularly high. This is why I would never drop GBP 2k at some individual tailor but rather on a long-standing establishment which can be held accountable.


A properly-founded independent can be held accountable, too, and might be more responsive to complaints than would one of the big firms. If you complain about the garments or service you received from Independent Tailor X, that could have more of an impact on his reputation and bottom line than a similar complaint about Gargantuan Tailoring House Y, with its huge clientele and its wonderful marketing department. Be that as it may, though, I would agree with you all things being equal, the risk of a total loss with an independent is higher than with an established large firm. You may or may not get a well-fitting suit out of them, but the chances of you getting nothing at all for your money are vanishingly small.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

aportnoy said:


> I couldn't agree more, he deserves his own set of bespoke brushes. His psychosis make Beaman's shortcomings seem downright adorable.


 Isn't it psychoses? Nonetheless, +1 & ROFLMAO!



AZTEC said:


> ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially *what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook* and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity.
> 
> AZTEC


The *red *highlight: *Absolutely Yes:* Beaman's defalcation was common knowledge at the time FilmNoirBuff .com was founded. *All* of the regularly posting members of AAAC were completely aware of Beaman's transgressions. The single most frequent poster at that time was FNB.



suds-okeefe said:


> I checked this domaintools.com out and you have to pay $15 to get the information. The domain name itself only costs $6 from tucows. Did you actually pay money to investigate FNB?


Being in the e-commerce business, we are members of many investigative sites for the purpose of due diligence in credit card acceptance. Thus, the answer to your question would be: no more money than I have already paid for membership.



suds-okeefe said:


> If so, you have the chain of ownership?


Chain: Founder; Darren Beaman _then to_ "Film Noir Buff", Broadway, New York, NY 10 036, +1.64600000 _then to_ the current masked registration.



suds-okeefe said:


> Where is the original post that this *re-post* is based on?


 I do not remember. It was posted here (by me) at the time of the founding of the FNB site. I noted that lest anyone erroneously think that the screen shot might be "new" evidence.



Albert said:


> All these starting members popping out of the ground at this topic are... ...a really big mystery.


 Not at all. Happens *every *time the Beaman or FNB subjects are raised. Coincidence, probably.



gordgekko said:


> I like bacon.


 I hear there are scrambled eggs available over there.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

wow, talk about going beserk with the quote button.

I will retire from this thread as I don't think it is going anywhere. I still do not see incontrovertible evidence that FNB knowingly aided and abetted criminal behaviour. If anyone wishes a further reply from me, send me a PM.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> wow, talk about going beserk with the quote button.


You've run out of attacks to make, so you complain about the quote button? That's a new one.



> I will retire from this thread as I don't think it is going anywhere. I still do not see incontrovertible evidence that FNB knowingly aided and abetted criminal behaviour. If anyone wishes a further reply from me, send me a PM.


Goal-post shifting. Nobody has ever accused FNB of participating in a criminal conspiracy with Darren Beaman, just of allowing Beaman a platform to drum up new business from when he knew or should have known about Beaman's questionable dealings and of willful blindness when confronted with evidence of Beaman's malfeasance.

And I would point out that you display the same sort of willful blindness that FNB does, and that that willful blindness, not any deficiencies of those who have responded to you, accounts for your sense that this thread is going nowhere.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

relax! spend more time away from the keyboard!

AZTEC


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

One might suggest that you do the same.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> One might suggest that you do the same.


One might...if one had the wit to say it first.

AZTEC


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Who was trying to be witty?


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

Well...you were half way there...

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> relax! spend more time away from the keyboard!


When argument and distraction and obfuscation and stone-walling fail, imply that the person that you're writing about has no life and is unhinged because he continues to post. Nice. Sounds like any number of posters at a certain other site, including the queen bee. Of course, the sword cuts both ways.

Edit: But it does take attention away from the central point, which is that Darren Beaman absconded with deposits from numerous customers (including, in one case, irreplaceable cloth), that he has never attempted to make right what he has done, and that, with at the very least the benign tolerance of FNB, he now attempts to find new marks at FNB's website.

And I thought you were taking your ball and going home. Please don't let me impede you.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Aztec, I for one (and I'm sure I wasn't alone in this) was really happy to see your plans to retire from this thread. Please don't change those plans. You have wasted the valuable time of a lot of forumers here, and your retiring from the forum permanently would probably be in everyone's best interests. It's clear that you had no contribution to make to the issue at hand other than stirring up trouble and muddying the waters. It's also pretty clear to everyone here that you are very likely a member of the FNB forum, masquerading here under a different screen name than you use there...like a few others posting here and on SF. We know that you're not "incroyable," but that's about it.

You, jtm, and suds o-keefe now need to sit down and shut up--at least as far as this forum is concerned. Or perhaps you should go back and join the many, many other folks at FNB with similar borderline personality disorders to your own.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Roger, you are not alone!

Aztec does a really poor Monty Python impression, though.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> When argument and distraction and obfuscation and stone-walling fail, imply that the person that you're writing about has no life and is unhinged because he continues to post. Nice. Sounds like any number of posters at a certain other site, including the queen bee. Of course, the sword cuts both ways.


Look, don't take it personally that l am not convinced by your reasoning. I don't post here that often and I have a certain amount of admiration for your stamina.

AZTEC


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

I'm happy to depart the thread, but why-oh-why keep calling me back?

no! don't answer that! it was a rhetorical question.

AZTEC


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> Look, don't take it personally that l am not convinced by your reasoning. I don't post here that often and I have a certain amount of admiration for your stamina.


You couldn't be convinced by any reasoning or evidence. Your mind is closed, and you are the very soul of bad faith. The evidence is there for you to see, but you remain willfully blind, intellectually dishonest to the very core.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

jcusey said:


> You couldn't be convinced by any reasoning or evidence. Your mind is closed, and you are the very soul of bad faith. The evidence is there for you to see, but you remain willfully blind, intellectually dishonest to the very core.


Ahhh, yes...a personal attack. We all sin from time to time, but you a moderator, should know better.

AZTEC


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I hear there are scrambled eggs available over there.


Naw, I like the cooking here better


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Please don't feed the trolls or allow them to deter the thread away from it's original purpose. 

DB was a crook and since he hasn't made good on his bad faith, is still a crook and now he is trying to find more victims.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> Ahhh, yes...a personal attack. We all sin from time to time, but you a moderator, should know better.


Hardly. You have demonstrated by your conduct in this thread that everything that I have written about you is accurate, and much more besides.

You said earlier that you were leaving. Why don't you? Or do you mean to continue to troll?


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

jcusey said:


> You might know, but many people are new to the forums or have short memories. As I wrote originally, I wouldn't bring it up if he were merely hiding under a rock somewhere dodging the clients that he has bilked. The fact that he is apparently trying to drum up more customers puts the matter in a completely different light.
> 
> If you have grown tired of Beaman talk, avoid those threads discussing Beaman.


Fair enough.


----------



## suds-okeefe (Aug 12, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AZTEC* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=594590#post594590
> _ahh, you see this is where I start to be sceptical. Your emotion and vehemence makes me wonder whether you can arrive at an unbiased assesment: essentially *what you are saying is that FNB knew for certain Beaman to be a crook* and aided and abetted him. I have yet to see clear and incontrovertible evidence that that was the case. And, to be clear, I do not doubt your veracity._
> 
> ...


Basically no one reputable would have been doing business with Beaman after the time FNB's site was founded?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

suds-okeefe said:


> Basically no one reputable would have been doing business with Beaman after the time FNB's site was founded?


 Uhhh ... if that is a question ... no.

But you seem to imply - forgive me if I am wrong - that clients can be reputable or disreputable. Frankly, I don't understand.

I see it this way: The informed person would not wisely patronize an artisan who had apparently fleeced a number of former clients and made no attempt to return his ill-gotten gains. The uninformed person would, logically, have no such protection.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to FNB ...?... I consider him neither reputable nor disreputable. Such would imply that he merits consideration. He is simply a petulant narcissist who cannot survive without a large cadre of sycophants. His symbiotic relationship with the dickweeds who post on his forum is evident to all but the self-deceiving and the inane. _Please note that this is *solely my personal opinion* and is in no way reflective of AAAC._


----------



## aportnoy (Sep 12, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> If, on the other hand, you are referring to FNB ...?... I consider him neither reputable nor disreputable. Such would imply that he merits consideration. He is simply a petulant narcissist who cannot survive without a large cadre of sycophants. His symbiotic relationship with the dickweeds who post on his forum is evident to all but the self-deceiving and the inane. _Please note that this is *solely my personal opinion* and is in no way reflective of AAAC._


Alex, I take extreme umbrage at this characterization. It is absolutely not your sole opinion as I couldn't have stated my opinion any more succinctly.

Thanks for the assist.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> Ahhh, yes...a personal attack. We all sin from time to time, but you a moderator, should know better.
> 
> AZTEC


Oh, for God's sake. That was a simple statement of fact. :crazy:

Look here: In a personal attack, one would use words such as #(^%#*^%# and (*#@&$#&( and _(^%_)*.

Hey Cusey! Can I turn off the bad word filter for a minute???


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

aportnoy said:


> Alex, I take extreme umbrage at this characterization. It is absolutely not your sole opinion as I couldn't have stated my opinion any more succinctly.
> 
> Thanks for the assist.


My sincere apologies. It will not happen again. :icon_hailthee:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DB is a crook. What else is there to say?

Another matter; Birds of a feather flock together. If FNB stands by DB- that says volumes about FNB.

Those that lost money from DB can't they take a lean out on his bank accounts to recover their money?

DB was a bad experience.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

WA said:


> DB is a crook. What else is there to say?
> 
> Those that lost money from DB can't they take a lean out on his bank accounts to recover their money?


He had two Ltd companies. The first was dissloved, the second is in the process of being "struck off". All liabilities go down with the company.

Unless you can prove via the courts (with its inherent costs) that there was deliberate fraud. Even then all assets (like house etc.) could be in other peoples names.

I'm afraid the ltd company route is much abused in the UK, it really needs a legislative overhaul.
There's quite a few millionaires walking around who achieved it by serially stiffing their creditors via inumerable ltd's. 

It really is caveat emptor.

I


----------



## martinchristopher (Jun 3, 2005)

Talk about beating a dead horse. This is an unbelieveable waste of time, and in a truly sad way, the funniest thing I have ever seen on this forum.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Infrasonic said:


> He had two Ltd companies. The first was dissloved, the second is in the process of being "struck off". All liabilities go down with the company.
> 
> Unless you can prove via the courts (with its inherent costs) that there was deliberate fraud. Even then all assets (like house etc.) could be in other peoples names.
> 
> ...


It seems like crimmals find all the loop holes so the gov needs to keep rewriting the laws to stay ahead of the crimmals.

If they can prove deliberate fraud in court wouldn't the con have to pay the court cost and other fees?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

martinchristopher said:


> Talk about beating a dead horse. This is an unbelieveable waste of time, and in a truly sad way, the funniest thing I have ever seen on this forum.


As long as you didn't lose money.

If you got $10,000 to throw away you can throw it my way.

While I didn't lose any, some have lost $10,000.

So where is the funny part of this?


----------



## martinchristopher (Jun 3, 2005)

Oh give me a break, I was referring to the childish back and forth, not the fact that the old rule caveat emptor was ignored during the period when praise was lavished upon Darren Beaman in this forum.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

martinchristopher said:


> Oh give me a break, I was referring to the childish back and forth, not the fact that the old rule caveat emptor was ignored during the period when praise was lavished upon Darren Beaman in this forum.


What did you want broken, since it to far away for spring break.

Haven't been to school for decades and spring break still has meaning to me.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

WA said:


> What did you want broken, since it to far away for spring break.
> 
> Haven't been to school for decades and spring break still has meaning to me.


...wait...what???


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

martinchristopher said:


> Talk about beating a dead horse. This is an unbelieveable waste of time, and in a truly sad way, the funniest thing I have ever seen on this forum.


No it isn't.

The purpose of the back and forth is so that those that are interested can hopefully avoid the same mistake in the future.
My knowledge has been learn't the hard way, having been diddled out of a 13% shareholding in a ltd company that I was once a director of. 
If you're bored of the thread, ignore it.

I


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> ...wait...what???


Oh- I thought I would lighten up a little.

I think it is time for me to go nighty-night.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Since paraphrases of Shakespeare are deemed jejune, I offer rather a little Steinbeck:

"The news stirred up something infinitely black and evil in the town; the black distillate was like the scorpion, or like hunger in the smell of food, or like loneliness when love is withheld. The poison sacs of the town began to manufacture venom, and the town swelled and puffed with the pressure of it."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Infrasonic said:


> He had two Ltd companies. The first was dissloved, the second is in the process of being "struck off". All liabilities go down with the company.
> 
> Unless you can prove via the courts (with its inherent costs) that there was deliberate fraud. Even then all assets (like house etc.) could be in other peoples names.
> 
> ...


I wonder how different the ltd's are in the US from England.

Anyway, I hope DB does time, so it goes on his record, since he has no intent to pay back like an honest man would.


----------



## ptolbert (May 12, 2005)

I propose a lock be placed upon this thread.


----------



## agoldf (Jun 25, 2007)

good idea but its placement due to new posts serves to warn newcomers.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

agoldf said:


> good idea but its placement due to new posts serves to warn newcomers.


Exactly the reason Mr. Cusey began the thread.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

ptolbert said:


> I propose a lock be placed upon this thread.


Why? If you don't like this thread, there are thousands of other threads to read. Frankly, I am bored by this thread, but I am not here to dictate what others should read or post.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

On a practical note. How about a sticky that provides online resource links for doing background checks. (per country?)
It would dovetail with the city shopping sticky and give people a bit more confidence about dealing with overseas traders. Not foolproof, but a start.

I


----------



## ptolbert (May 12, 2005)

rkipperman said:


> Why? If you don't like this thread, there are thousands of other threads to read. Frankly, I am bored by this thread, but I am not here to dictate what others should read or post.


I just feel as if the main ideas have come to a point and many of the ongoing arguments are going round and round, and that, very little is being added at this point in the dialog.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

ptolbert said:


> I propose a lock be placed upon this thread.


no. it serves a valuable function in warning anybody considering Beaman's services.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

ptolbert said:


> I just feel as if the main ideas have come to a point and many of the ongoing arguments are going round and round, and that, very little is being added at this point in the dialog.


true, but see post number 1. if Beaman had done something new, none of this would have happened. as it is, it seems Beaman is up to his old tricks and there is certainly much utility in this thread.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

ptolbert said:


> I just feel as if the main ideas have come to a point and many of the ongoing arguments are going round and round, and that, very little is being added at this point in the dialog.


I agree, but if others enjoy this, let them have their fun.


----------



## trims (Apr 12, 2007)

A more practical idea may be a "buyer beware" locked and stickied thread, with a quick name mention and link to the relevant thread discussing each companies problems. This would keep it on the top for newbies, rather than a thread that has to beat the horses corpse into oblivion.

But the set of brass cajones on this Beaman fella is impressive. Sorry to hear of anyone's losses to him.


----------



## daytura (May 17, 2005)

trims said:


> A more practical idea may be a "buyer beware" locked and stickied thread, with a quick name mention and link to the relevant thread discussing each companies problems. This would keep it on the top for newbies


That seems like an excellent idea, but it might end up being a thread with considerable influence. Best to be prudent. 
I humbly suggest that such a stickied thread would work if :


 concise (consisting solely of names and links to other discussions, no further commentary - the idea being that the visiting member would always remain free to make his/her mind up)
 impartial (by also providing links to counter-evidence, when such exists)
 locked (I fear that allowing discussion would most likely be counter-productive)


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

trims said:


> A more practical idea may be a "buyer beware" locked and stickied thread, with a quick name mention and link to the relevant thread discussing each companies problems. This would keep it on the top for newbies, rather than a thread that has to beat the horses corpse into oblivion.


 Though your thought is not without merit, the action of stickying a _caveat emptor_ thread might be seen as endorsement by AAAC and the whole sticky legal wicket such would entail. Better to leave it as the occasional informative eruption of detractors whenever such ugly beasts try to again rear their heads.

Besides, in the spirit of freedom-of-speech, it gives necrophiliacs a voice.


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

double post deleted


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Besides, in the spirit of freedom-of-speech, it gives necrophiliacs a voice.


Given what they have done to you, your spirit of tolerance towards them is admirable. (insert wink).

As a closing thought, can we all agree that Beaman is bad news and put to one side whether others were caught "giving a mobster a boost up into the back of a truck with a bag of stolen merchandise".

AZTEC


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

AZTEC said:


> As a closing thought, can we all agree that Beaman is bad news and put to one side whether others were caught "giving a mobster a boost up into the back of a truck with a bag of stolen merchandise".
> 
> AZTEC


 ... +1


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

wow, some agreement. whew....


----------



## FzyLgic (Jun 17, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> If, on the other hand, you are referring to FNB ...?... I consider him neither reputable nor disreputable. Such would imply that he merits consideration. He is simply a petulant narcissist who cannot survive without a large cadre of sycophants. His symbiotic relationship with the dickweeds who post on his forum is evident to all but the self-deceiving and the inane. _Please note that this is *solely my personal opinion* and is in no way reflective of AAAC._





aportnoy said:


> Alex, I take extreme umbrage at this characterization. It is absolutely not your sole opinion as I couldn't have stated my opinion any more succinctly.
> 
> Thanks for the assist.


I have struggled for days not to write nearly the same words. Imagine my surprise at finding them so eloquently stated.


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

As a dickweed who posts on the FNB forum, do I have to wear an armband or other identifying mark here?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are free to post wherever you want. All of us are free to read over there if we wish and make our own opinions.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I really wish I had the five minutes of my life back that I spent reading this thread......


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Nantucket Red said:


> As a dickweed who posts on the FNB forum, do I have to wear an armband or other identifying mark here?


A codpiece will suffice.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm bummed that you thought of the codpiece before I did.

Sigh - - -


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> A codpiece will suffice.


Very droll.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Nantucket Red said:


> As a dickweed who posts on the FNB forum, do I have to wear an armband or other identifying mark here?


 Nah. When you've been around as long as Pussycat's Boyfriend armbands become superfluous. At least you're a loveable dickweed ... much as that statement may ruin your facade.


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Nah. When you've been around as long as Pussycat's Boyfriend armbands become superfluous. At least you're a loveable dickweed ... much as that statement may ruin your facade.


Aw, shucks!


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

maybe kabbaz can lend you one of his codpieces now that he no longer has any use for them...

AZTEC


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Perhaps one could commission a bespoke codpiece from Beaman. On second thought........


Karl


----------



## Joel (Jul 23, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Well ... if it's a bit 'o spice you want ... the answer to the oft-asked question about Beaman's free reign elsewhere is: *Sometimes you have to pay the piper.*​
> _(This is a re-post for those who might have forgotten the "gift")_:


Is darren Beaman the owner of filmnoirbuff?


----------

