Talk:Advance fee fraud

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This Crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


I'm not sure what this is doing here, but it's both a dead end (and I believe) lonely. Can we fix it up? Researcher (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an unusual article. Relevance here? Mission statement? SJ Debaser 15:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess the logic is that we have articles, say, on corrupt politicians/televangelists etc., and this is a form of corruption. Not that I'm arguing for keeping it. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to touch on some fallacious thinking, and with that tie-in will work well on-mission.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It's still dead end and lonely. I imagine that, If I really thought about it, I could generate some sort of fallacious thinking link for virtually any subject, but I'm not sure that it springs very naturally out of this one.--BobBring back the hat! 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. This seems just as valid an article as Pyramid scheme, although it does need some reworking. I'll take a look in the coming week to see if I can tart it up a bit. I think that scams would be very much on-mission, and area we're not really covering that well right now. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, since I started it, I think I should answer. Skepticism and rationality aren't just about science and religion; it's also a matter of due diligence in daily life. IMHO covering scammage is very on-mission, especially as it tends to slosh over into the political and religious fringe by way of affinity fraud. EVDebs (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines - the credulity required to believe some exiled prince wants you to share in his millions is pretty much like what it takes to swallow most woo. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement-I just want it off the "lonely pages" list. (Yes, clearing out that list is my personal mission in life.) What can link to this, and what can we link it to? Researcher (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Scams? Con artists? Something along that line? Gullibility? What's that word that means gullibility? I think we might have an article on that... credulousness? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Credulity. And done. Researcher (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Francis Drake scam[edit]

Should [1] be mentioned here? (There is 'much other coverage' - but OH is too long ago for his own RW article.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's probably worth a mention, since it seems to be part of the history of the scam. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This refers: take note of the comment against 'Note.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hartzell is dead, so he can't be libeled if that's what you're getting at. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
More that the standard formula was applied even though he was guilty. I will leave it to the legals whether champerty was involved.
The point being that this scam is somewhat historical. Anna Livia (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


I know that the scammers can set up 'large numbers of automated emails' at relatively little cost in time and money (this is probably a simplification) - but how much response are they likely to get at present, as people (whether email users or devising the filters) are likely to recognise many of the variants that occur? Anna Livia (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. They've made adjustments to sometimes dodge filters and to target the naïve: permutational changes in emails for filters and intentional misspellings to weed out the less naïve. It's a cat-and-mouse game for the filters and permutations. Bongolian (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The non-responses can be ignored, but at some point the number of 'go away you [insert abusive words of choice]' type replies will swamp the responses of those who can be exploited (especially if email filters can be developed to catch the query-emails, and people can recognise 'this looks like a variant on the scam emails I know') Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)