If Fynn says you could call Ryan and he'd answer your questions, why don't you call the guy? Why continue with the "Maybe he's a hero and maybe he's a grifter" stuff if you potentially have access to the answers?
Aren't you concerned that if he is a "Friggin hero" like you suggested he may be in an earlier comment that you've just pretty …
If Fynn says you could call Ryan and he'd answer your questions, why don't you call the guy? Why continue with the "Maybe he's a hero and maybe he's a grifter" stuff if you potentially have access to the answers?
Aren't you concerned that if he is a "Friggin hero" like you suggested he may be in an earlier comment that you've just pretty much blasted the guy? If you have sensational questions and he does have satisfactory answers, he doesn't come out on the other end of this as a hero. He comes out on the other end as the battered guy accused of malfeasance. Nobody is going to read through the paper trail mess to determine if he's innocent. They just read the accusations, label him as untrustworthy and move on. You created a lose lose situation for Cole.
No. I questioned Cole at CHD amd was not satisfied of good faith. That along with all the other information I've gleaned from his actions (including the Died Suddenly mockumentary) and other information from those around him suggested that it was more prudent to lay out the questions now. Amd given the reactions I've seen, I currently believe that I made the right decision.
From what I read, he's tried that in the past in particular with Fynn and gotten burned by being ignored. So he had tried to initiate direct communication. Maybe more directly to Cole, then, is what you mean.
If Fynn says you could call Ryan and he'd answer your questions, why don't you call the guy? Why continue with the "Maybe he's a hero and maybe he's a grifter" stuff if you potentially have access to the answers?
Aren't you concerned that if he is a "Friggin hero" like you suggested he may be in an earlier comment that you've just pretty much blasted the guy? If you have sensational questions and he does have satisfactory answers, he doesn't come out on the other end of this as a hero. He comes out on the other end as the battered guy accused of malfeasance. Nobody is going to read through the paper trail mess to determine if he's innocent. They just read the accusations, label him as untrustworthy and move on. You created a lose lose situation for Cole.
"Why wouldn't you call into a circle from which you've wasted many hours being given the runaround, and think gives you misleading answers,
and is coincidentally associated with the timing of specific attacks on you ?"
Can't think of a reason.
So because somebody close to Cole wasted your time, you know that Cole will also waste your time. Cole is guilty by association.
Your goal is apparently to determine the truth, but you won't even speak to person most knowledgeable of the situation when invited to do so.
No. I questioned Cole at CHD amd was not satisfied of good faith. That along with all the other information I've gleaned from his actions (including the Died Suddenly mockumentary) and other information from those around him suggested that it was more prudent to lay out the questions now. Amd given the reactions I've seen, I currently believe that I made the right decision.
From what I read, he's tried that in the past in particular with Fynn and gotten burned by being ignored. So he had tried to initiate direct communication. Maybe more directly to Cole, then, is what you mean.
Fynn said on Twitter that Cole would take Crawford's call and answer his questions.
I do not trust a word from her after only experiences that I found misleading at best.