QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 20th October 2009, 1:23am)
Did David Shankbone get funded and the intro to Perez because he got David Saranga in on the Israeli hardcore gay porn king Michael Lucas's entertainment? Or did David Saranga get David Shankbones in on the Lucas Entertainment, inc after he financed his trip to Israeli? Who scratched whose back first?
Personally, I doubt the order of events and personal introductions really matters. For all we know, the three of them could have all met at the same time, at a party or a nightclub... It makes more sense to assume that he met/befriended Lucas first, and then Lucas introduced him to Saranga, but that's only because it would have been highly inappropriate for someone in Saranga's position to be introducing US citizens to gay porn actors, as opposed to a gay porn actor introducing people to an Israeli consulate official (which is still inappropriate, just not as much).
The real issue, to me, is the alleged "stalker." There was some speculation that the AnonIP user who used Wikipedia to accuse Shankers of co-habitating with Lucas was one of Lucas's jilted ex-boyfriends, or perhaps a porn actor who had a falling-out with Lucas and wanted revenge. There was further speculation that the AnonIP was Shankers himself, and I even believed that for a time, but that was mostly because I was blinded by the fact that Shankers is a genuinely appalling and horrible person. Also, he didn't really lose his shit here on WR until that issue was raised, at which point he became incredibly abusive, almost frighteningly so.
By now, though, I don't really think it makes sense that Shankers would have been the AnonIP, but it makes a fair amount of sense (given his personality and temperament) that he would have made up the "stalking" story, with the AnonIP as the "stalker," as a means of gaining sympathy and discrediting the allegations. We'll probably never know for certain, but of course that won't stop them from mentioning it in the article about him as if it were a definitive fact.
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 20th October 2009, 12:07pm)
At the start of this, I wrote to the effect that I thought Shankbone had the right idea and had done very well to get something directly back out of his Pee-dian investment. It could have been done with a little bit more class but I stand by that even if I criticize the daftness of the 'Palestinian kid toy gun' affair.
As I recall, I had the same general opinion, as far as the first part of that is concerned. If you can get away with it and not hurt anybody, then why not try?
As for the second part, though, let's face it: If he had done all that stuff with even a tiny microscopic iota of class, that would have been more class than he actually did it with.