just engaged!

[larouche]

Thanks to an observant member who emailed my company and alerted us to this
confusion, I am able to write and put a stop to this confusion. All of the
pieces on my store are ready made and what you click on to order is exactly
what you will be receiving. This 3.54ct round brilliant with measurements
9.76 - 9.89 x 6.00 which is set in the D'Vatche original platinum Royal
Crown setting is the only such ring which is posted on my eBay store:
La-Rouche-Diamonds The finger which the ring was
taken on belongs to that of my assistant Ms. Doherty who has been working
with my company for quite a long time. Ms. Doherty also happens to think
that she has a unique finger which she can recognize anywhere! J I would
like the thoughtful person who made me aware of this situation to please
email me back so I can send him/her a gift certificate for my eBay store.
While forums like these are so great, I am sorry that such a person can get
on and lie when so many real people have wonderful stories to tell. Such a
person makes a mockery of the beautiful affair of engagements and family
histories.

 

[icelovr]

Larouche et al.,
Thanks for clearing this up - as you can see, we have all been speculating as to what the story was. In simplest terms, what you are saying is this stone couldn't have been inherited by the fiance (from his grandmother) as indicated in the post and the ring isn't on her finger but on Ms. Doherty's finger.

As of 2/27 did you still have the piece? - to perhaps suggest 1)the girl was so excited about being engaged she posted the ring..."her ring"...being modeled by Ms. Doherty?...or 2)that the fiance gave her pictures to post of the ring being modeled w/o telling her where the pics came from.

 

[glitterata]

Oh, really, why does it matter? Can't we just give it a rest? The only person hurt by this fiction is Mr. Larouche, and he's not even all THAT much hurt--yes, he had his pictures stolen, but that got a lot of us to go look at his auctions. (Lovely stuff there, Mr. Larouche.)

If the "bride to be" is the injured party, let her lick her wounds in private. If she's the guilty party, so what? What she did isn't that horrible, and it's not that uncommon on the internet, either.

Leonid, any chance you could close this thread?

 

[icelovr]

Glitterata,
I guess you're right - I just thought maybe she wasn't being dishonest and had been told the info by the fiance...one can hope ya know. Maybe this thread should be closed...you're right.

 

[phoenixgirl]

Does anyone else see the irony in criticizing people for responding about this (the "can't we all just put it to rest" posts)?

After all, there is a big, wide world out there, and we're all visiting this diamond forum on a daily basis. We're just the sort of people who would beat an inane topic to death.

 

[Mara]

inane topic surely, we all love those...but this is about another PERSON...effectively it's slamming her...this gal we don't even know....by assuming that she is lying and posting this story, speculating what could be wrong with her, how she needs attention etc. it just seems beneath all of us, really.




bottom line, we're never going to know. i don't even trust the response from larouche to be really honest. so in the interest of dismissing the lynch-mob mentality, just end it already. it's almost like high school.




if we want to talk about an inane topic, please..lets talk about Tiffany.

it's only tuesday but we can work ourselves into a tizzy by Friday if we try really hard.

 

[solange]

I quite agree that it is time to drop the subject. But there is no reason to doubt Larouche and question his honesty. He is, as far as I can discern, an innocent party who learned that photos taken from his site were used on Pricescope without his knowledge or permission. Of all the people who had a right to reply, he did.

The ring is still for sale on Ebay. It was not sold and has been relisted. I emailed Mr. La Rouche with the Email he provided to Pricescope and he confirmed that it is his ring and the only one of a kind he has listed. And it is his letter.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/16/2004 6:38:39 PM solange wrote:

I quite agree that it is time to drop the subject. But there is no reason to doubt Larouche and question his honesty. He is, as far as I can discern, an innocent party who learned that photos taken from his site were used on Pricescope without his knowledge or permission. Of all the people who had a right to reply, he did. ----------------

I have refrained from commenting on the two threads; but, I *completely* concur with your assestment. Benefit of the doubt should be w/ the holder of the ring. PERIOD. I applaud whoever made larouche aware of this thread. Thought about it myself.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 3/16/2004 6:38:39 PM solange wrote:





But there is no reason to doubt Larouche and question his honesty. He is, as far as I can discern, an innocent party who learned that photos taken from his site were used on Pricescope without his knowledge or permission. Of all the people who had a right to reply, he did.
----------------

Your key words there are 'as far as I can discern'.Therefore, there exists doubt.

 

[solange]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 6:34:02 PM Mara wrote:

----------------
On 3/16/2004 6:38:39 PM solange wrote:



But there is no reason to doubt Larouche and question his honesty. He is, as far as I can discern, an innocent party who learned that photos taken from his site were used on Pricescope without his knowledge or permission. Of all the people who had a right to reply, he did.
----------------

Your key words there are 'as far as I can discern'.Therefore, there exists doubt.

----------------

As far as I can *discern* Mr. LaRouche had the pictures of the ring on his Ebay site and responded, even giving the name of the person on whose finger it was modeled. Seeing is believing and I have no doubt of what I saw. It is his ring.I live in Manhattan and I checked him out with a few jewelers I know. He has a good reputation and a good feedback rating on Ebay.
And no, I am not a customer,employee or relative of his. I am working with Lesley at Whiteflash to find a stone at this time.

 

[Mara]

Yes...we should definitely accept larouche with no doubt. It's too hard to sign up on a forum like this with a 'name' and post as someone you may not be. Oh wait...no it's not.




Sorry to say..there is always doubt when the internet comes into play.

 

[glitterata]

But Mara, what could anybody get out of pretending to be La Rouche? Those ARE his pictures. Someone clearly stole them and pretended they were pictures of an heirloom--either the original poster, wanting to claim that she had a big ring, or (a very remote possibility) her boyfriend, wanting her to think he was about to give her a big heirloom ring.

In any case, whether or not La Rouche is the person posting here under his name, he IS the injured party. And everything he says here is entirely consistent with being La Rouche. There's absolutely no reason to think the poster who claims to be La Rouche isn't.

Everybody here is all upset that some anonymous girl might be innocent of having lied online about owning a large diamond ring. Everybody says to give her the benefit of the doubt. Surely it's more important to give La Rouche the benefit of the doubt? He's got a business and a reputation. Casting doubt on his honesty could hurt that reputation and business badly. And there's absolutely no reason to cast that doubt. Yes, it's possible that somebody else is pretending to be La Rouche for kicks. It's also possible that somebody else is pretending to be YOU for kicks. But why would they? Is there any evidence that they are?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/23/2004 12:13:15 PM glitterata wrote:

But Mara, what could anybody get out of pretending to be La Rouche? Those ARE his pictures. Someone clearly stole them and pretended they were pictures of an heirloom--either the original poster, wanting to claim that she had a big ring, or (a very remote possibility) her boyfriend, wanting her to think he was about to give her a big heirloom ring.

In any case, whether or not La Rouche is the person posting here under his name, he IS the injured party. And everything he says here is entirely consistent with being La Rouche. There's absolutely no reason to think the poster who claims to be La Rouche isn't.

----------------

I completely concur. And the casting of doubt is disconcerting. This is his *livelihood*.

I don't care about some dopey phoney who is falsely posting. But, it crosses the line when someone's business is on the line.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 3/23/2004 12:13:15 PM glitterata wrote:





It's also possible that somebody else is pretending to be YOU for kicks. But why would they? Is there any evidence that they are?

----------------

Very good point. As I noted...nothing on the internet is really *known*.

I agree to disagree with you gals...we shall never really know what happened.

However, maybe next time "LaRouche" will make his pictures non-clickable for downloads.

 

[tomatoe]

Correct me if I am wrong but I'm under the impression that whether or not someone disables rightclick on a website, with IE, pictures can still be downloaded or used w/o permission simply by hovering the mouse over a particular picture and a box on the top left hand screen will appear with a save disk icon signifying an option to 'save this image'. The picture below illustrates this point

Also, even if there is a script available that disables the IE function. Anyone who chooses to can simply press print screen, use a simple picture editing software and still rip the photo off any website.

 

[LadyJ]

Yes, I have right click disabled on my personal site using html code but people with certain browsers can hover their cusor over the image and it will give you the option anyway. Also print screen works.

 

[Mara]

Yep Tomatoe and LJ...it was an entirely facetious comment.




Anyone with basic knowledge can always copy something from the internet.

Print screen is my favorite tool.

 

[Tanzania]

hey i have QN i want to do diamond bussiness i where i can get thgem in Tanzania but I need sponsor for minning can i find one ??

 

[winyan]

Yup, Tomatoe, you are correct, and if you have snagit (a little program for copying portions of a screen, you can still make a copy of just about anything.

win