More like help her find the next person she will scam. This person is a scammer beware fellas, she was our employee at cryptocoreradio.com and was fired as of yesterday for taking over 30k funds from clients for work and keeping it. At the same time she stole our twitter account on the way out. https://cryptocoremedia.com/betrayal-of-trust/
You guys had 30,000 in funds from clients? 30,000 what?
I'm not even starting by questioning whether someone could embezzle 30,000 something from you, but I have to start by wondering what it is that you're supposed to have's 30,000 of.
After all, your website looks like something out of the late 90s. It has a media player which is strictly right out of the book basic JavaScript embed and reminds me of those heady days of yesteryear when people thought that streaming their own radio station was going to end up with big bucks. (I remember those days. I was part of those days.)
Even by Internet radio standards, this is pretty weak sauce. No playlist of recently played tracks, no ability to request things from your archives when there's no live show planned – all pretty basic stuff for Internet radio as of 10 years ago.
Not to mention the header image which has a broken bottom shading underneath the embedded player if your browser is running 1920 x 1080.
These are bush league design errors that I've talked first year design students around.
So I'll reiterate – what could an employee of your site take 30,000 of from "clients?" It certainly can't be USD, or I'll have to ask why it wasn't invested into a solid web design company instead of whoever did this mess.
And if you're going to link to an article which supposedly describes what's going on, you probably ought to at least make sure that it resolves to an actual post and/or article on your site instead of giving:
I don't want to suggest that you have a credibility gap here, because that would be to imply that you have any credibility at all.
Like I said, minor-league web design stuff. If you want me to believe that Lori walked away with 30,000 of anything that you owned, first you have to convince me that anyone would trust you with 30,000 something. Maybe 30,000 US pennies (which for those reading this outside of the US would come out to be $300 USD). Still, I subscribe to the belief that an significant claim requires significant evidence, not just naked assertion.
You know, if we cared about truth. We may not.
Most of Core Media's revenue is behind the website, doing media services. The website is only one aspect. We all put a lot of trust in Lori, but when everything is online sometimes you never know 100% if someone is legit or a scammer. I think Lori saw the writing on the wall and took advantage of it.
That would, even more so, put Core Media on the spot in making an extraordinary claim. Which this is.
Extraordinary proof is required, and not something that looks like a knocked together late 90s website. Especially if "media services" is supposed to be your go to business. If you drop a link which is supposed to be that extraordinary proof, everything about that proof has to be credible.
You get hit twice on this. Firstly, you make an unsupported claim which looks very bad – in both uses of the word. Secondly, the fridge logic kicks in, and someone will wonder how in the world 30,000 whatevers (which still remain undefined) walked out the door with anyone, which hits your credibility on whether you can be trusted with other decisions if what you said is, in fact, true.
I know this corporate PR thing is a lot harder than it looks for people who can't be bothered to understand how it works, but them's the breaks.
I was going to assume that you were going to tell me that a lot of revenue is actually channeled through that silly magazine of yours (really, a magazine in this day and age), because at least the layout and photography seems to have some pretty high production value going behind it – but even that seemed incredibly silly, given the scale of the claim that you're making.
Ultimately, this comes across from the side that is supposed to be professional more like a bad case of vaguebooking, and I think we all get plenty of that elsewhere.
You either need to make your case where you assert it, do it well, and don't be twats about it, or decline to make the accusation at all.
Frankly, I think the assumption in most of the world is that pretty much anyone involved in cryptocurrency's a scammer until convinced otherwise, and I'm not entirely unsure that more than 60% of the people involved in cryptocurrency don't think exactly the same thing. But the one thing we can all agree on is that you can't just step up and smear someone without actually dropping some facts and proof by sheer naked assertion while simultaneously saying things which don't accord with anything like reality when it comes to credibility.
The market doesn't care what you think of the website. If Core Media continue their operations then they are filling some kind of demand. From my time in Core Media, they were a profitable business. If they are profitable, they are filling demand. That is basic economics. The marketplace comprises of millions of people who have subjective values and your opinion is only one of them.
A lot of companies manage to continue operation without actually being profitable. A lot of companies manage to continue operation without being profitable while a number of freelancers and even very core employees know nothing about it.
But very few companies deliberately choose to set as their public face in part of the numinous field in which they operate a substandard form of presentation. They most certainly don't make that the locus of informing other people in whatever community about someone they think is a bad actor. And on top of that, they most certainly don't make the ostensible information about someone they think is a bad actor not actually present on the site after they specifically linked to it.
So, you'll forgive me, if I don't come along on your unsupported fantasy about whether they are profitable or not. I am way too familiar with how borderline companies can present themselves both internally and externally as profit-centers without being anywhere near that.
The marketplace is comprised of millions of people who have subjective values – most of whom have no experience in any field that you would care to name. Their subjective values are shaped by what they can perceive, and while it would be a fools errand to try and speak for all of them, it's certainly possible to speak for an educated portion of the market space.
So when I say something looks particularly bad, that means that it looks particularly bad to a skilled and experienced part of the market. If that is strangely threatening to you, if that makes you uncomfortable – then good. There's potential for you to become part of that skilled and experienced part of the market.
The presence that Core Media has as part of this particular public showing doesn't create a feeling of a company which is doing well. It reads a lot like misplaced ego. The corporate presence reads like a shack shop that thinks it's uptown. These are not good traits.
If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take it up with them.
I was in Core Media and stepped aside because I'm having a kid. My time at Core Media they were turning a nice profit. Core Media have many arms including trading, media, media services. The trading aspect was stopped prior to regulations. Now Core Media focus on media and media services. Core Media is a registered company in Australia and employs approx around 8-10+ people currently. Core Media isn't a company based in a garage, it's a real company that provide real services and turns a real profit. The people running Core Media I have the upmost respect for because they put so much trust in their employees. This is a rare characteristic in business. You may say that the was a bad entrepreneurial error for an internet company, however during my time at Core Media even I had great admiration for Lori and I would have done the same. I even stuck up for her a few times. Nevertheless, Lori was holding a lot of cash and it was her job to hand over the money as an employee of Core Media. She didn't do that. Now it is up to her to prove she didn't steal the funds.
I am saddened to see that you joined the ranks of the anti Lori campaign, @Thirdstryker1. I always have known you as a reasonable, fair person. I am surprised that you would assume you have the whole truth. You clearly do not, but I am not inclined to badmouth people, especially this way.
No matter what has happened, every last one of you should have had the decency and the common sense to consider that maybe reality as you have been shown is skewed. Perhaps I am not “a bad actor”. I have nothing of secret in my world- and you guys really showed NO basic due diligence before loudly bashing your bewildered, former ally.
Throwing criminal accusations around as if they are simple insults seems sloppy and cruel.
Never has my heart been so genuinely immersed in something I loved doing - only to become the cast away from the few people who I considered friends.
It’s this bandwagon behavior that we are supposed to be against.🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑
Do you guys mind behaving in a civilized way? What’s up with the the angry mob coming at all angles?
🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑🐏🐑
Don’t be sheeple. Think for yourself. Ask questions before ruining someone next time.
I am a distant person for you guys but from here, I am a mom, engaged to be married next year after loss you wouldn’t believe, and I have seen enough tragic shit in the last few years to fill a book. Still, nothing has been quiet as devastating as you all turning on me. Especially my mentor, the leader, the boss. Painful. 🥀
Be better than typical. I am no monster.
😭
Hey Lori,
Your message above is to me just a word salad. As you know I'm a straight shooter, if you want to convince me, give me evidence. Core media have provided evidence you stole funds, you need to counter that.
If you're referring to the article which they finally have readable on the site – there's no proof.
In fact, a canny, thoughtful reader will come away from that feeling as though they have been misled.
Oh, sure, they make the assertion that Lori stole tens of thousands of dollars from them. They assert that quite aggressively. They don't actually talk about and what position she must've been to have access to that kind of funds, nor do they actually say that they are going to pursue criminal charges against her – as someone would who had tens of thousands of dollars which, theoretically, would impact day-to-day operations for a media operation would do.
All they do is assert that this bad thing happened, that she did it, that they're not going to tell us what happened, nor are they going to actually use the criminal justice system as it's designed in order to pursue what is not a small amount of money, but instead are just going to mildly smear her reputation.
Does that really, truly, come across to you as a company from which tens of thousands of dollars in operating funds have been embezzled? Seriously, this is a real question. If you come to this sort of announcement and have to judge the truth of it, absent any actual proof in the document itself, absent any engagement with the legal system absent any sort of supporting evidence, do you really come away with belief in complete truth of the accusation?
Because if so, you are probably going to have a very bad time pretty much anywhere. If that is the level of accusation and the support thereof that it requires to convince you of a capital crime, then I have this bridge in San Francisco that I can let you have cheap. While I'm at it, I'll sell you chunks of concrete which I guarantee came from the dynamited alien landing platform at Area 51.
I'm saying you'd be gullible, is what I'm saying. I'm saying your judgment would be more than questionable.
No one has to convince you that they are innocent in the mere presence of accusation. Accusations are cheap and easy. They typically cost the accuser nothing; there is almost no risk for making an accusation. If you are going to put the burden of proof, all proof, on the accused, you have made a decision which is going to end poorly for you in your life going forward.
And that's sad.
I am always willing to look at proof. I love proof. I'm willing to believe proof. I'm also willing to believe that people lie; all people lie. Accusers lie.
An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. We have the claim – but we have no evidence. Get back to me when that happens and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
The differerence is what I have in “evidence” is very damaging to my former friend, and despite the battle that has ensued, I won’t intentionally harm someone
This is all a word salad, just give me evidence you didn't steal the funds. Lori you made a poor error in judgement, either you prove you didn't steal the funds or you protect your friend. You must choose one. If you don't give us evidence I will continue to believe you stole the funds. That is life.
I think you should re-examine the evidence already provided to you. Then ask yourself who was actually the affected parties. You will discover that the person who suffered loss was House. Only. Not his company, not my clients... only House. I came to him with my confession of what had happened and he acted accordingly, to what he thought was the right thing to do, and everyone who was a client was, with my help, handled fairly and everyone ended up with MORE than what they even paid for in services. That being said, I feel that what transpired was between me and House. I truly made up for it- and beyond. I am not some thief, salivating with greed. Word salad is my way of protecting the remaining dignity of my own and for my former friend who didn’t show me the same courtesy. Think what you want but I suggest being courteous at least and doing some due diligence before reporting falsely that fraud was committed. It wasn’t.
One more sad thing: The “friend” I am protecting is the very same friend who has chosen to turn all of this on me at the most random of moments. It is House Who I was protecting with my silence. Well, now- I ask you to slow down on your accusations until you are up to speed on the truth, in context. You have been fed a spoon full of decorative bullshit. I was not going to insult you by feeding into this hate rally, and you will probably at some point see that your erroneous move was first to believe only what you have been offered without any such prerequisite probing, not even so much as a “what happened?” was uttered in my direction until I pointed out that you were assuming too much. Tabloid smut is what this is reducing it too. The cost, according to what House wishes, would be my credibility, my livelihood and my now empty pantry. However, I am not so easily snuffed out in the face of such abomination. I was protecting the hand that continues to slap me in the face while enjoying bountiful feasts of which I have none. He is the one I was protecting. Without his reciprocal courtesy I am inclined to take this to the next level. It isn’t my interests to convince you. It is my interest to survive. That’s proving to be a challenge with this shit fogging up my reputation and I don’t deserve it. 🔛