Inetbet closes my account - You be the judge

[sandykauf]

Yes, nifty..I think online casinos that have no regulatory body or laws
To abide by can do anything they want. They have a business model
Which may translate into reputable practices or unreputable. This is entirely
Their choice as their is no governing body to enforce their practices.

Rtg casinos fall into this category. In a court of law, inet bet would need to provide
Evidence of fraud and defend why they did'nt pay a customer. In the current environment, this is not necessary or required.

No, I was never bonus banned from this casino. I played there a few times but don't
Provide them any more business.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Given this casinos snobbish attitude, I'm not surprised they didn't provide a
Satisfactory answer to gambling grumbles investigation. That site usually does'nt
Assign skull and crossbones to more reputable casinos, so he must have
Really had his reasons.

I've noticed some of the club world casinos are showing up there more often. They
All seem to be using fraud as the main excuse for not paying but don't supply
The evidence. The casino is judge and jury in this unregulated environment.

That's why it comes down to how you feel about a place and if you trust them...for me,
I don't care if they're accredited or not. The accredited casinos listed here can
Do what they like. It's about profitability and inetbet is probably not doing too
Well which is why they're so pety with bonuses and irritable that they just close
Peoples accounts with no warning. Don't offer bonuses if you don't want
Your customers to have them.

Inetbet is digging their very own grave and will most likely not survive another
Year.

Not at all. Look up past "fall from grace" awards. These are awarded for the most spectacular descent from accredited (or at least "good to go") to rogue. Operators don't like receiving this award, so are not going to boast about it as they do the others (best casino, etc). Some big names from the past have received this award.

There is a set of standards that accredited casinos have to adhere to, and they can only "do what they like" provided they keep to these standards. If they decide, like Betfair did, to throw away these standards and act rogue, they will find themselves appropriately categorised. Before you joined CM, Betfair spent quite a while in the accredited section, now you have to look in the rogue pit. They thought they could "do what they like" and go unpunished. They were wrong, and not only are they in the pit, they have suffered more than others in the global tightening, and their shares have been falling, and nothing management have done so far has stemmed the fall. Part of this is down to how much this incident has propagated on the internet, and is what most new players see if they decide to search for information about Betfair before parting with their cash.

 

[slotaddict]

Given this casinos snobbish attitude, I'm not surprised they didn't provide a
Satisfactory answer to gambling grumbles investigation. That site usually does'nt
Assign skull and crossbones to more reputable casinos, so he must have
Really had his reasons.

I've noticed some of the club world casinos are showing up there more often. They
All seem to be using fraud as the main excuse for not paying but don't supply
The evidence. The casino is judge and jury in this unregulated environment.

.

Agreed. You are spot on actually, as he admittedly did just give them a frowny face for previous issues because of past reputation but this one seemingly was just too obviously egregious and I can see why.
They seemingly lied to him and not just once as shown in the story. I like gambling grumbles a lot and they always seem to give a fair depiction of what has happened without bias and give the full story from both sides. If they lied to gambling grumbles then I would guess they are being false about Chu's situation and even more so I bet they were lying during the pab also.
They really are making a poor name for themselves recently. I wonder just how bad their financial situation is.

 

[maxd]

... They All seem to be using fraud as the main excuse for not paying but don't supply The evidence.

Asking for casinos to present their evidence in fraud cases is foolish and a demonstration of either monumental ignorance or delusional wishful thinking. No casino in the world, internet or otherwise, is going to tell you what the fraudsters did that allowed them to get caught. That is giving away insider information that is too valuable and too hard-won to be shared. The fraudsters may not like this but that's tough isn't it? They are cheats, liars and thieves who make things worse for everyone. Why should anyone give a damn what they want?

For people who are falsely accused of fraud to ask for the casino to share their evidence is asking the wrong question. They need to work with the casino to resolve fraud accusations, not against them. In other words ask "what can I do to prove I'm not a fraudster" instead of "you need to show me why you think I am a fraudster". Often that gives the casino the opportunity to move forward with the case.

Simply saying "show me the evidence" is a non-starter in terms of moving forward. This may be challenging at times, even occasionally unfair, but it is reality and pretending it isn't is, as I've said, either ignorance or wishful thinking. Neither is going to help anyone resolve their problem.

The accredited casinos listed here can Do what they like.

Rubbish! Have a look at the "Standards for Accredited Casinos" (here). Statements like this are destructive and malicious. They are also factless hogwash.

I'm not trolling. I'm stating facts.

Nice try. You state complete falsehoods like this:

... with the pab process here there is never evidence given for various reasons. So the accuser makes accusations but no evidence is necessary.

And then turn around and say "yeah, see, there were PABs!" as if that is proof of anything. It isn't, and you're simply trying to hide behind the trivial in order to dodge the boot in the arse that you well deserve.

Statements like "you just jump to the casinos side without question when I make a point" and "no response at all regarding their pab they suddenly had their accounts here locked" are blatantly false and demonstrate a willful lack of knowledge of the actual circumstances and cases involved. In fact they seem to have no purpose but to discredit the site and damage our reputations. And that is being a troll: "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages ... with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." It's very easy to make accusations like this then duck and hide while we have to go through the laborious and time-consuming process of countering such BS claims.

We've warned you about being a troll, you are being a troll now: you richly deserve to be treated like one.

Well, Well. It looks like the Monkey was telling the truth again.

Bull-pucky, for all the reasons given above. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[takethemoney]

This isn't looking good for this casino. As much as some CM denizens try and defend them, I've done enough research to conclude that I wouldn't play there. Piss poor support and knee jerk stuff like this is the norm for them and it's plastered all over the internet. I had an account there and was contemplating using a bonus. I had questions that were not answered until after the bonus had expired, simply because I had to wait for some response by email which didn't come for almost 48 hours. And the person who responded was not very friendly and didn't even sign off with a name. Because of that, they never got an initial deposit and I've never played there.

 

[gaydave]

Asking for casinos to present their evidence in fraud cases is foolish and a demonstration of either monumental ignorance or delusional wishful thinking. No casino in the world, internet or otherwise, is going to tell you what the fraudsters did that allowed them to get caught. That is giving away insider information that is too valuable and too hard-won to be shared. The fraudsters may not like this but that's tough isn't it? They are cheats, liars and thieves who make things worse for everyone. Why should anyone give a damn what they want?

For people who are falsely accused of fraud to ask for the casino to share their evidence is asking the wrong question. They need to work with the casino to resolve fraud accusations, not against them. In other words ask "what can I do to prove I'm not a fraudster" instead of "you need to show me why you think I am a fraudster". Often that gives the casino the opportunity to move forward with the case.

Simply saying "show me the evidence" is a non-starter in terms of moving forward. This may be challenging at times, even occasionally unfair, but it is reality and pretending it isn't is, as I've said, either ignorance or wishful thinking. Neither is going to help anyone resolve their problem.



Rubbish! Have a look at the "Standards for Accredited Casinos" (here). Statements like this are destructive and malicious. They are also factless hogwash.



Nice try. You state complete falsehoods like this:



And then turn around and say "yeah, see, there were PABs!" as if that is proof of anything. It isn't, and you're simply trying to hide behind the trivial in order to dodge the boot in the arse that you well deserve.

Statements like "you just jump to the casinos side without question when I make a point" and "no response at all regarding their pab they suddenly had their accounts here locked" are blatantly false and demonstrate a willful lack of knowledge of the actual circumstances and cases involved. In fact they seem to have no purpose but to discredit the site and damage our reputations. And that is being a troll: "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages ... with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." It's very easy to make accusations like this then duck and hide while we have to go through the laborious and time-consuming process of countering such BS claims.

We've warned you about being a troll, you are being a troll now: you richly deserve to be treated like one.



Bull-pucky, for all the reasons given above. Don't feed the trolls.

Please read the enhanced policy on flaming

Simply put - do not violate rule 1.1 - No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Abusive behavior will not be tolerated and your account may be suspended. Please refrain from potty mouth language.

 

[maxd]

Apologies for the derail that follows, hopefully this will be brief:

Please read the enhanced policy on flaming

Cute, but perhaps you'd like to be more specific. Pointing out how and where someone is distorting the truth and misrepresenting the facts is not "flaming". Nor is countering their false claims and telling them of the consequences of their actions.

 

[Casinomeister]

That is such a NEW website I thought Gambling Grumbles had been going for ages. Google just hasn't had a chance to pick up on this yet, not even when the search field is constrained enough so that only that one quoted article should appear.

This is pretty much totally different. It goes by the same name and backed by some of the same people, but it's not the same Gambling Grumbles that you remember back in the day with Julie Sidwell.

CM,

It is unclear how they are directly related based on the links that you provided. How are they related and what has that to do with inetbet in particular other than the 2nd persons complaint? You closed both of their accounts for pab fraud. How were they fraudulent in their pabs?
In the particular report from gambling grumbles it looks like inetbet actually got caught in several lies. There responses were not good enough for Gambling Grumbles either. It seems dodgy at best IMO.

It may be unclear to you - but it's not to me and Max who handle the PABs at Casinomeister. These fraudsters are cheats and liars, and will say anything in public to push their agenda. So you need to chose who are you going to believe. Them or us.

 

[Casinomeister]

Please read the enhanced policy on flaming

You're acting pretty cocky for just getting back from a 30 day break for flaming. Don't test my patience. Thank you.

 

[Nifty29]

Welcome back GAydave

 

[maxd]

The "system is broken" posts have been moved to their own thread: The whole PAB system is broken in my opinion.

 

[footdr]

Based on my 4+ years of play at InetBet......

I have never, ever had a problem with InetBet and play there 1-3+ times per week. Take advantages of all bonues offered me and when no bonus available still deposit and play.

they definately have the fastest payouts. Support good 95% of the time they respond quickly.

Not accusing any poster of misrepresenting facts, but I find it hard to believe InetBet would close accounts or take away bonuses without good reason.

 

[gaydave]

Nifty,

You asked a lot of questions. I will get to them as time permits. The first one I would easily address is the lies from inetbet.
They lied about multiple emails to chuchu
They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek
They lied about alicek having a cds claim
....one of them is lying about trouble cashing out at other casinos, I would venture to assume it is the casino once again as this could be verified.
She apparently told the truth about her pabs here. She apparently told the truth about the deposits and bonus as this is verifiable stuff. She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG.

so all the sudden now THEY are telling the truth and SHE is lying? Not buying what their selling brother. Neither is gamble grumble, nor most open minded adults. That is not a dig at all for Bryan/Max. Just saying that it does not add up and I am not the type to blindly follow someones word, especially when fraud makes no sense here.

We will never find out either since alicek has been banned and cannot report this or respond. That is one thing I would fix about the pab process real quick.

Plus, what IS fraud definititon here for alicek? Did she use her own bank/cc/ewallet? did she provide substantial documents? Did she wrongfully use bonuses? Did she use them at all?
I must have tunnel vision like Chu does because I can't find a reason not to pay her the winnings or what could be fraudulent about it. She sure the hell couldn't be colluding with others at RTG as there is not multi player games.

 

[iNetBet Promos]

Hi All,

I don't mean to derail this thread however as gaydave has made direct accusations of lying I will reply.
I am not sure how they can make such sweeping statements without knowing all of the facts. However :

"They lied about multiple emails to chuchu"- more than one email was sent in this regard.
"They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek" - again untrue a bonus was involved.
"They lied about alicek having a CDS claim" - There are CDS claims made by this group of fraudsters as a whole.
"She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG." - Again this is not the case.

I cannot supply full details of this case, for reasons mentioned in other posts, however the above points can be answered.

Gambling Grumbles (Steve Russo) have also been provided with an updated response to the "report" he has posted on his site. As we were not privy to, nor given any opportunity to reply to the latest comments by alicek.

I would suggest that it is better not to post accusations on topics you do not have full information to.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos


edit: Apologies to Bryan. I did not see his last post before submitting this reply.

 

[WB_Carter]

Inetbet is still around? People still play there? I fail out with them many years ago. Sometimes I get email asking me to come back. But I don't think so. Does Allen still works there? He has one of the worst attitudes.

 

[greasemonkey]

Hi All,

I don't mean to derail this thread however as gaydave has made direct accusations of lying I will reply.
I am not sure how they can make such sweeping statements without knowing all of the facts. However :

"They lied about multiple emails to chuchu"- more than one email was sent in this regard.
"They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek" - again untrue a bonus was involved.
"They lied about alicek having a CDS claim" - There are CDS claims made by this group of fraudsters as a whole.
"She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG." - Again this is not the case.

I cannot supply full details of this case, for reasons mentioned in other posts, however the above points can be answered.

Gambling Grumbles (Steve Russo) have also been provided with an updated response to the "report" he has posted on his site. As we were not privy to, nor given any opportunity to reply to the latest comments by alicek.

I would suggest that it is better not to post accusations on topics you do not have full information to.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos


edit: Apologies to Bryan. I did not see his last post before submitting this reply.

Now we are getting somewhere! This should put a good light on it.

1) can u give the dates and titles of the emails sent to chu?
2) What were the bonus codes used by Alice K on each of her deposits?
3) What other RTG casinos has she played but not reported about?
4) IS she real? DID she turn in good documents?


5)....This is a slipper slope. You are saying that everyone you have accused her of playing with in a "group of fraudsters" is then liable for each other's actions. Further, you are saying they are a group and that they are fraud. Fraud meaning "untrue"? They are not real people? or they are real people but they committed a heist on your casino as a group?
.... see, WE are a group here at CM too. If we play at your casino are we a group of fraudsters? Further, am I connected to chuchu and will you bonusban me then? Or if I win will you just claim you don't have to pay?
An answer to question 2 and 4.. and perhaps 3 will help a lot with this.
If you claim she is part of a group then you just say that you can lock out, steal from or otherwise treat anyone that YOU think is in that group.


Regardless, lets find out which of you were being honest/dishonest. Lets see the bonus codes, the other casinos and find out if docs were sent.
thnx!!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi All,

I don't mean to derail this thread however as gaydave has made direct accusations of lying I will reply.
I am not sure how they can make such sweeping statements without knowing all of the facts. However :

"They lied about multiple emails to chuchu"- more than one email was sent in this regard.
"They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek" - again untrue a bonus was involved.
"They lied about alicek having a CDS claim" - There are CDS claims made by this group of fraudsters as a whole.
"She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG." - Again this is not the case.

I cannot supply full details of this case, for reasons mentioned in other posts, however the above points can be answered.

Gambling Grumbles (Steve Russo) have also been provided with an updated response to the "report" he has posted on his site. As we were not privy to, nor given any opportunity to reply to the latest comments by alicek.

I would suggest that it is better not to post accusations on topics you do not have full information to.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos


edit: Apologies to Bryan. I did not see his last post before submitting this reply.

"They lied about multiple emails to chuchu"- more than one email was sent in this regard.

Technically true, but these other emails were sent over quite a period of time, and Chuchu thought that "numerous emails" meant numerous emails sent over a short period of time for THIS instance of you wanting him to back off from claiming all those bonuses. This is a communication issue, rather than a lie.


"They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek" - again untrue a bonus was involved.

In this instance, we are relying on the word of Alice K that no bonus was involved. Transaction records from the iNetBet "back end" obviously show otherwise. To call iNetBet a liar presupposes that Alice K is telling the truth. iNetBet can produce the histories from the "back end", Alice K can only give her word.

"They lied about alicek having a CDS claim" - There are CDS claims made by this group of fraudsters as a whole.

Now, this is problematic, calling Alice K out on this presupposes her guilt. If there is no record of Alice K herself having made a CDS claim, then to say "Alice K has claims at CDS" is misleading, and should have been stated as "the group of fraudsters involved, of which we believe Alice K is a member, have made other claims with CDS"

"She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG." - Again this is not the case.

This is the word of Alice K against records held at RTG HQ and CDS. Again, this is debatable as some of these records will relate to the fraud ring in general, rather than specific members. It again presupposes that Alice K is guilty.

Since the last two presuppose Alice K is guilty in order for them to be applicable in the case, they CANNOT be used to prove her guilt in the absence of other evidence, as this would be a circular argument, or a "catch 22". They can ONLY be used as corroboration once guilt has been demonstrated through other means.


Communication problems probably contributed to the adverse report at Gambling Grumbles.

If Gambling Grumbles want to be seen to be fair, they should also publish the updated response from iNetBet beneath the original report.


In Chuchu's case, it was about bonuses. Clearly Chuchu was somehow breaking the rules, but could not see how. Maybe he didn't take heed in the past because he couldn't see what he was doing wrong to start with. If everything was within the terms and conditions, including the "small print", how is a player to know that they are doing something "wrong".

It seems there is a need for clarification of the rules regarding the overall use of bonus codes, rather than just having specific rules for specific codes.

Take Tempting Tuesday for example. There is usually more than one code, and as with the monthly newsletter, there is nothing that states players can only "pick X from Y" as opposed to sequentially going through all the codes. It seems that it is players sequentially going through all the codes that gets iNetbet annoyed enough to issue a bonus ban.

 

[chuchu59]

Hi All,

I don't mean to derail this thread however as gaydave has made direct accusations of lying I will reply.
I am not sure how they can make such sweeping statements without knowing all of the facts. However :

"They lied about multiple emails to chuchu"- more than one email was sent in this regard.
"They lied about a bonus being involved with alicek" - again untrue a bonus was involved.
"They lied about alicek having a CDS claim" - There are CDS claims made by this group of fraudsters as a whole.
"She is apparently open as to all the other casinos that she has played at RTG." - Again this is not the case.

I cannot supply full details of this case, for reasons mentioned in other posts, however the above points can be answered.

Gambling Grumbles (Steve Russo) have also been provided with an updated response to the "report" he has posted on his site. As we were not privy to, nor given any opportunity to reply to the latest comments by alicek.

I would suggest that it is better not to post accusations on topics you do not have full information to.

Best Regards
iNetBet Promos


edit: Apologies to Bryan. I did not see his last post before submitting this reply.

I was hoping to let go of this but I am very infuriated. You admitted in the thread I initiated that you only sent me a mail in July which contradicts the statement that 'numerous mails' were sent. You were unable to supply me any reply outlining the dates those 'emails' were sent. I dare say ,given your casino's history of disrespect for divulgence of private data, you wouldnt think twice about posting the dates of the emails if you had them.

 

[Nifty29]

I was hoping to let go of this but I am very infuriated. You admitted in the thread I initiated that you only sent me a mail in July which contradicts the statement that 'numerous mails' were sent. You were unable to supply me any reply outlining the dates those 'emails' were sent. I dare say ,given your casino's history of disrespect for divulgence of private data, you wouldnt think twice about posting the dates of the emails if you had them.

Chu

Sorry I have to pull you up here.

Inetbet says they sent you an email in July, to which you responded, and to which they responded again. Basic maths makes that two emails they sent you (at least), which would satisfy the meaning of "numerous"....so if you really want to be technical, which it seems you do, then they are telling the truth.

Insofar as the casino's history of disrespect for divulgence of private data - the only times I have known them to do this is when players make statements which are not accurate, or deliberately make false claims to paint them in a negative light. IMO they have every right to defend their reputation and to present the facts. Surely you aren't saying that members should be able to make whatever outrageous claims they like, and then hide behind the "privacy" issue? The fraudsters love to pull this stunt, and then carry on like pork chops when they are shown up to be full of ****.

AFAIK, once you make an accusation against anyone, casino or other member, all bets are off and they should be allowed to defend themselves with the facts (regardless of where they come from).

In regards to gambling grumbles, I have a feeling they are deliberately being pro-player rather than taking a balanced view. It's interesting that there seems to be several members here championing their service, and I would imagine that suits them down to the ground in regards to attracting more people and attention to their site. My guess is that if they continue doing so, they will run out of casinos that will work with them, and the players will end up being the real losers. It's also interesting that the members who seem to put so much faith in gambling grumbles are those who have had issues in the past....but that could just be a coincidence.

 

[chuchu59]

Nifty,

I believe it would be more appropriate for the casino to respond. Basically by stating 'numerous mails' they mean we have warned you many times and my reply plus their ensuing reply which was not itself a warning but rather a discussion on my suggestion for increasing wrs does not fall within the term 'numerous emails' for this purpose.

As for Gambling Grumbles, while I have not used their services since the days of Julie Sidwell(how I miss her) they may be pro-player but I trust them to take a balanced view.

Any casino should be allowed to defend its stance in relation to accusations made against it. However, the information divulged must be relevant and necessary. If not, how can they be trusted?

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty,

I believe it would be more appropriate for the casino to respond. Basically by stating 'numerous mails' they mean we have warned you many times and my reply plus their ensuing reply which was not itself a warning but rather a discussion on my suggestion for increasing wrs does not fall within the term 'numerous emails' for this purpose.

As for Gambling Grumbles, while I have not used their services since the days of Julie Sidwell(how I miss her) they may be pro-player but I trust them to take a balanced view.

Any casino should be allowed to defend its stance in relation to accusations made against it. However, the information divulged must be relevant and necessary. If not, how can they be trusted?

With respect Chu, it isn't up to you who responds and who doesn't. I believe the moderators decide what is or is not appropriate.

You are nit picking Chu - inetbet did send you more than one email. The adjective attached to "emails" is immaterial.

Can you give me an example of inetbet divulging something irrelevant and unnecessary?

I think you are being blinkered by your emotions here.

 

[vinylweatherman]

With respect Chu, it isn't up to you who responds and who doesn't. I believe the moderators decide what is or is not appropriate.

You are nit picking Chu - inetbet did send you more than one email. The adjective attached to "emails" is immaterial.

Can you give me an example of inetbet divulging something irrelevant and unnecessary?

I think you are being blinkered by your emotions here.

YOU are also nit picking by trying to justify the reply email (making TWO emails) qualifies "numerous" to be an accurate description of what was sent. "numerous" indicates "too many to keep count of", and is NOT a proper representation of just TWO emails, one of which was merely a reply, and would NOT have been sent had Chuchu not replied to the ONE email sent in July.

iNetBet have admitted that their use of "numerous" applies to ALL emails related to this matter that have been sent during the lifetime of the account, thus by implication trying to argue that issues long since considered "closed" are being reopened in order to "dramatise" the situation.

If Chuchu has kept all the emails over the life of his account, then he can post dates of the emails received, along with a brief indication of what they were about. In this case, emails related to the use of bonuses are the only ones relevant to the argument.

 

[Nifty29]

YOU are also nit picking by trying to justify the reply email (making TWO emails) qualifies "numerous" to be an accurate description of what was sent. "numerous" indicates "too many to keep count of", and is NOT a proper representation of just TWO emails, one of which was merely a reply, and would NOT have been sent had Chuchu not replied to the ONE email sent in July.

iNetBet have admitted that their use of "numerous" applies to ALL emails related to this matter that have been sent during the lifetime of the account, thus by implication trying to argue that issues long since considered "closed" are being reopened in order to "dramatise" the situation.

If Chuchu has kept all the emails over the life of his account, then he can post dates of the emails received, along with a brief indication of what they were about. In this case, emails related to the use of bonuses are the only ones relevant to the argument.

....and of course you are not "nit picking" by writing three paragraphs about my alleged "nit picking"

It's amazing how the central argument has been cleverly smothered by the inetbet haters' deliberate focus on one word pertaining to how many emails were sent. The whole episode was brought on by Chu calling them liars and being impolite. Inetbet has the right to not tolerate behavior of this kind, and also to close accounts of such players.

 

[greasemonkey]

@inetbet:

I would say they can easily prove that they are being honest. Tell us the coupon codes or bonus codes that alicek used on each of her deposits. She states she didn't use any bonus on her last 3 deposits. Who is telling the truth? Easily proven.
Tell us the other casinos she played at that she is lying about. Show us. You have already proven to be MISLEADING if not out and out LYING about the CDS complaints. The same with Chu's emails... or at best, exaggerating. Please answer all the questions asked earlier like Did she or did she not supply appropriate documents?

So instead of having Nifty argue of what you may have meant or what you may be thinking, just give us the proof. Show us the bonus codes and a screen shot of them in the cashier or whatever and we will beleive you. Let us know if she had supplied documents. Just "saying" something is so or is not so, is not believable to most nor is it sufficient evidence for most.

 

[Nate]

I cannot understand how people can equate a pair of emails to the word numerous. This word is clearly used to quantify a large amount.

Please refer to the thesaurus definition:

Adj. 1. numerous - amounting to a large indefinite number; "numerous times".

Nate