 |
| Scott and Linda Gill Sink (From Facebook) |
Scott G. Sink, senior EVP at McGriff Seibels Williams, appears to have a demanding position, and you might think he has his hands full. After all, he helps manage a company with $1.7 billion in combined revenues, providing services in numerous insurance categories -- energy and marine, transportation, construction risk, employee benefits, health care, and more.
With what appears to be a full plate, records show that Sink still has found time to fool around on Ashley Madison. That probably is news to his wife, Linda Gill Sink, who shares his home (valued at roughly $800,000) at 4967 Reynolds Cove in Vestavia Hills. According to zillow.com, the house has eight bedrooms, five baths and almost 3,800 square feet. The couple has two children, Taylor and Brittany Sink.
Scott Sink is a prominent alum of the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. He is a member of the college's alumni board. And in 2012, he was named the college's Risk Management Alumnus of the Year. From an article about the award:
Insurance executive Scott G. Sink was named the 2012 Risk Management Alumnus of the Year at the Insurance Society Banquet hosted by the University of Georgia Terry College of Business’ Risk Management and Insurance program in Athens on April 3. Sink is the 20th recipient of the UGA RMI award that was established in 1992.
“Scott‘s career achievements have distinguished him in his field and he is well deserving of this recognition,” said Rob Hoyt, Head of the Risk Management and Insurance Program at the Terry College.
 |
| Linda and Scott Sink (right), with children Taylor and Brittany (From Facebook) |
Sink received his BBA in Risk Management and Insurance from the University of Georgia in 1984 and began his career with Virginia Power in Richmond, Va. From 1987-1994, Sink served in several capacities for Alexander and Alexander in its Baltimore and Washington, D.C. offices.
We sought comment from Sink for this article, but he has not responded to our queries.
Previously:
(1) Edgar C. Gentle III -- attorney at Gentle Turner Sexton and Harbison, Birmingham, AL (3/8/16)
(2) Stewart Springer -- attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL. (3/9/16)
(3) Richard W. "Dick" Bell -- attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL (3/14/16)
(4) Robert M.N. Palmer -- attorney and bar association president in Springfield, MO (3/15/16)
(5) Thomas Plouff -- attorney, who is licensed in Alabama and has a practice in Chicago (3/17/16)
(6) James F. Henry -- attorney, Bradley Arant, Birmingham (3/23/16)
(7) Michael E. Stephens -- founder, Lakeshore Foundation, Birmingham (6/20/16)
(8) James Vawter -- founding principal, Capstone Collegiate Communities (10/4/16)
(7) Michael E. Stephens -- founder, Lakeshore Foundation, Birmingham (6/20/16)
(8) James Vawter -- founding principal, Capstone Collegiate Communities (10/4/16)
(9) Randy Bates -- executive VP and member of board of directors, Golden Flake (10/5/16)
(10) Reid Carpenter -- attorney, Lightfoot Franklin White, Birmingham (10/6/16)
43 comments:
Why publicly shame the kids by posting a photo of them? Seems low, even for your "journalistic" standards. On a wholly separate note, if you're going to write about something you have no idea about, at least try to do a modicum of research first. Revenues do not equal assets.
You sure it is a giant insurance company? I've never heard of it before.
Yawn. After awhile, these lose impact. Would love to hear more stories around true social injustices that is your sweetspot and led to your ranking as an influential LEGAL blog. Just one mans opinion.
This isn't news. It's the laziest posting you could do. And posting pictures of family is low....and a little creepy.
Here will be his response... If you don't like my blog them don't read it or you are probably on Ashley Madison and that is why you don't want me to write about this or I don't have to listen to you bc you won't tell me your name...blah blah blah. This guy is not a journalist. He is a gossip columnist. The best thing everyone can do is stop reading and commenting on his site.
Are you from Alabama, @8:47? McGriff Seibels Williams has been around B'ham area for more than 100 years, and it's a big deal on the national stage. It's not an insurance company, but an insurance brokerage. A reader probably could do a better job of explaining the difference than I can. I don't think they offer one brand of insurance, but represent several brands that might best fit customers in different business sectors. They have 13 offices around the country, from New York to Seattle. Scott Sink is one of their highest-ranking officers. Here is link to Web page:
http://www.mcgriff.com/
@8:39 -- I've addressed the kids issue umpteen times. Try to do a modicum of research and maybe you won't be clueless. Bottom line: It's Scott Sink's job to take care of his kids' feelings, not mine, and he should have thought of that before signing up for such a sleazy Web site as Ashley Madison. I don't know the Sink kids, and I'm not capable of "shaming" them, whatever that is. If they feel shame because of their father's activities, they should be able to take it up with him.
Part of the story is the utter disrespect AM customers show for their families -- wife and kids. If you don't like that, tough.
They don't lose impact with me, @9:33, and they don't lose impact with most of my readers. I've got the statistics to prove that. More importantly, this is a legal blog, and the most important legal partnership most of us enter into is marriage. When people who hold high-level professional positions, and manage millions/billions of dollars, and they treat this partnership with disrespect, that's a story. If you disagree, feel free to take your yawns and go elsewhere.
To all readers who want to convince Mr. Shuler not to report on Ashley Madison, or not include the wives and kids in the reporting: stop. You are not going to get him to change his mind. This is a man who preferred to stay in jail for 5 months rather than remove allegedly defamatory material from his blog. If he is going to willingly stay in jail for months over a post that was found by a judge -- rightly or wrongly -- to be defamatory, he is not going to stop this reporting either.
Mr. Shuler has made clear that he marches to his own drum, and by complaining to him you are just making him more determined to continue. So, please, for everyone's sake: stop communicating with this tortured soul.
@9:33 - why don't you give us your name, so we can check to see if you are on Ashley Madison? That's the real reason you want to convince the world these posts are losing impact. In fact, you are here because they are gaining impact and are directly connected to nationwide litigation in St. Louis. You might fool some people, but you aren't fooling me.
As for me, I can't wait for the next AM episode from Mr. Schnauzer. I love seeing these corporate pricks twist in the wind. They are most deserving.
Here's an idea, @8:39. Why don't you give Scott Sink a ring and ream him out about about "shaming" his children? I'm sure you can find the number for MSW in the phone book or on the on the Web. Show some balls and go to the source of the problem instead of trying to shoot the messenger.
Here come all the Ashley Madison "nervous nellies." They are so predictable, as if they really care about Scott Sink and his family. They could not care less. They just don't want to be the next one exposed.
Good for you, LS. You've go the arrogant, white, suburban elites nervous. They are used to getting their way in everything. They hate it when they can't get their way with you.
I look forward to more such "anonymous" comments. And I look forward to more AM posts. It is an important story, and these people don't like it because it may soon involve them. They are like cockroaches who try to stay in the dark, and now your bright light is about to find them.
Hah, hah! Scurry little roaches, try to find a hiding place.
Someone place a call to Profile Defenders -- stat!
@10:51 -- I can help anyone who wants to contact Scott Sink and shame him for shaming his children. His email address is ssink@mcgriff.com. If folks get responses, I hope they will share them here.
The main thing I find hilarious about these AM posts is all the commenters who blast those that disagree and tell them to reveal who they are...all the while posting anonymously as well! Pot meet kettle. If you're called my for someone to reveal who they are, then you do is as well!
Too funny!
Well, my "modicum of research" comment was with regards to you conflating revenue and assets. I see that you've changed your headline to reflect this (with no accompanying editor's note to identify the mistake - gasp! - I thought you went to journalism school), though of course the phrase "manages revenue" is nonsensical. So you chide me for my own lack of research but I really think you meant to thank me. And on a separate note, not surprising that a childless and Godless man would think the sons bear the sins of the father. Given your attitude towards the world I don't think it's a stretch to imagine you were bullied as a child - why subject innocents to that same mistreatment when it serves no real justifiable purpose to the story? That's a rhetorical question so don't bother responding, I won't be returning to read it anyway.
Don't know why people have a problem with this reporting. You've done exactly what you said you would do -- focus on high-level professional elites, who are entrusted with power, money, or both, and this shows that even their spouses should not trust them.
It's extremely important reporting, and I, applaud your ability and willingness to take it on, despite heat from the "Over the Mountain" crowd. Let 'em sweat, I say.
My, aren't we arrogant, @12:14. You seem to know that I'm "childless and Godless," as if there is some connection between the two, when you don't know me at all. I never said the sons bear the sins of the father. I simply posted a photo of a family, one that Scott Sink did not consider before signing up with Ashley Madison. Please don't bother returning, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
Think you are a bit mixed up, @12:09. A number of commenters essentially are trying to tell me how to run my blog, making personal assumptions about me, and taking a stand against reporting on the Ashley Madison story. I can't speak for those who respond to those commenters anonymously, but I think we have a right to know who these people are. Otherwise, there is no reason to take their opinions or suggestions seriously. The responders are simply asking folks to ID themselves, so we can understand whether their words should be taken seriously or not. They are making no other point other than that, so I don't see that their identity matters much one way or another. I think a lot of folks post as anonymous because that's the easiest and quickest way to do it. Aside from that, some of the responders might simply be taking the position that I take, which is this: If you want to comment or make a suggestion about the contents of this blog, and you want to be taken seriously, you need to ID yourself. These commenters suggest that I should make changes to my blog based on their words. But their words have no meaning if I (and other readers) do not know the source. It's simple common sense. If you want someone to change something, and you want your words to be taken serious, identify yourself. Otherwise, you are just blowing in the wind.
These anti-Ashley Madison commenters clearly are trying to get you off the track. And I submit that's because you are interfering with their agenda, which is to perpetuate the myth that corporate America is filled with honorable people and majority-white suburban neighborhoods are filled with honorable individuals of "Christian character." Your reporting shows that is all a bunch of baloney, and white elites can't bear the thought of having their bubbles popped.
I say, "Keep popping it." I'm loving it.
Wealthy men divorcing & cheating on their spouses is as old as recorded history. Sir Thomas More said something about it to Henry VIII & lost his head. Then, More's prosecutor, Thomas Cromwell eventually lost his head too for refusing to indulge the King's every whim. Norfolk was going to lose his head as well, but Henry VIII died a few hours before the execution. The prosecution's star witness, the Attorney General of Wales, Sir Richard Rich, who indulged the King by lying for Him on multiple occasions, died peacefully in his sleep. Cromwell's grand nephew, Oliver, overthrew the Royals & had the head of Charles I severed from his body. What did the English People do after Cromwell liberated them from their oppressors? The leaders of the Republic invited King Charles II to return from exile. He plunged the country into war, dissolved Parliament & prosecuted those who opposed him on flimsy evidence.
12:09 again. I get your thoughts but you missed my point. You say it's ok for people who agree with your posts to stay anonymous. But, if one of them disagrees with another persons opinion about the post, then they hide behind the cloak of anonymity. We used to call those people cowards where I grew up. I think it's funny!
Much ado about nothing. Besides a few obscure politicians (including a mayor in north Alabama who was already fighting city council...and was about to be fired anyway) and a few religious leaders, not one of the people you've exposed has been fired. Fact.
And, now, time for the anonymous crowd to ask me my name. It's Hercule Poirot. Sleuth on that one awhile...
Very few of us are what we seem...Agatha Christie
Old Gov. Bentley friend: No threats, just treat Dianne right
"On December 27, 2015 columnist Charles Dean published a lengthy interview with Governor Bentley, quoting in the process comments by the Governor about rumors that had circulated," Echols said.
Like the Church Lady used to say: "How con-VEEN-ient!"
Then the next day allegedly:
"Governor Bentley had received a threatening correspondence from his former accountant Mike Echols on or around December 28, and was reporting it to Collier..." the timeline said. "Collier indicated to Gov. Bentley he viewed the email from Echols as a threat."The email, according to this timeline, said the email contained screenshots of text messages between Bentley and Rebekah Mason. It described how Bentley "had severed personal and profesional ties with Echols ... because of Echols' known involvement in Governor Bentley's personal and private matters pertaining to his family," and because he had helped Dianne Bentley file for divorce from the governor.
“Well, isn't that SPE-CIAL?!”
@2:22 -- Did I say I was setting out to get anyone fired? No. You claim as fact that no one I've covered has been fired: (A) How could you know that? (you couldn't); and (B) Most of these people are so high up the food chain in their organizations that they do the hiring and firing and are unlikely to be fired themselves.
In other words, they make judgments about others, when their participation in AM shows their own judgment isn't so hot. That's one of the major points of the series, as I stated a long time ago.
Speaking of hypocrisy, Governor Bentley can no longer support Donald Trump after the video/audio tape with Trump's comments about women.
WTH? Is he drunk (or stupid) with power or did he forget about his own audio tapes?
All of these people are out of control.
Mr. Sink had only one payment transaction on Ashley Madison. Not enough for him to use the site - almost certain that he did not meet any women on the site.
That's why payment details matter. You are not telling the full story if you leave the payment details out.
Hercule again. Yes, Dog, I do know with 100 percent certainty that none of the Birmingham people have been fired. The Human Reource community in Birmingham is quite tight...and I am one of them. The society of Human Reaource professional association last ago warned against firIng for this. Look it up...SHRM and Ashley Madison. Google it.
Besides, if one as fired you would PROMINENTLY have a feature article on it. Until that happens, I trust my HR friends.
Hercule
Hercule:
If you are so proud of your connections to the Bham HR community, why don't you tell us who you are? Your information would have a lot more credibility that way. But it's really beside the point because I've never claimed anyone has been fired for this, never said I wanted anyone fired for this, and (as already noted) these generally are high-level executives aren't likely to be fired for much of anything, short of stealing, etc.
A few questions, @5:16: (1) How do you know Mr. Sink had only one payment on the site? (2) How do you know that was not enough for him to use the site? If he paid, why was he not able to use the site? (3) How do you know I'm not going to run payment details on Mr. Sink? I've run such details on a number of AM customers, and this is an ongoing series, so there is no reason to believe we won't be following up with payment details on Mr. Sink and others; in fact, that's what we plan to do; (4) I contacted Mr. Sink at least twice, and he had every opportunity to tell me what you have stated, but he didn't do that. Why?
Aside from those questions, you seem to confirm my story. It says Scott Sink was a paying customer at Ashley Madison, and you have confirmed that is true (of course, I knew it was true). I didn't say he met any women, and I didn't say he made a bunch of payments. You are welcome to comment, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, given that you acknowledge everything in my post is true.
I would suggest this: Give us your name and contact information, and when I receive the Sink payment information, I will be sure to give you credit if it shows Mr. Sink had only one payment transaction. It won't prove my reporting is wrong, but it will prove you got that point right. I'm simply asking you to stand by your reporting, which I'm sure you want to do.
I will bet everything I own that @5:16 does not respond to your comment in any substantive way and does not ID himself. I also will bet that he is lying his ass off.
This is @5:16, responding to @10:00:
I am not lying "his ass" off. I am a woman, and my ass is still attached to me. Try some manners next time, loser.
This is @10:00 -- Looks like I was right. No substantive response, did not ID herself.
Anonymous Please! I'm an average looking dude & within 72 hours of signing up on a dating site, I've got a half dozen e-mails & am going on a date within a week or two. If you're not, you're probably a bottom of the barrel ugly guy or doing something wrong.
I have no skin in this game, but 5:16pm, why bother with posts (positive or negative) only to snuff the blogger? What did that accomplish? Maybe i'm missing something?
I wonder if what 5:16pm meant: maybe there's an initial charge to join but he didn't pay any subsequent charges? Which could mean he didn't participate in anything untoward? I don't know enough about how membership dues/fees works on the site. (and i'm not going to explore the site for sure)
That might be, SC, but since the person won't identify herself, I have no way to evaluate the truthfulness of her claims. Beyond that, my reporting is true: He is/was a paying customer at Ashley Madison. I didn't say he did anything untoward.
True that.
Just realized that I screwed up and left out a couple of followup comments from @5:16 above. Since I somehow deleted them at moderation stage, I can't post them in the normal format. But I found the comments and can post here, one after the other. My apologies for the confusion:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ashley Madison customers revealed: Scott G. Sink, ...":
This is @5:16, responding to Roger's questions:
1. I checked the data after reading your post. I did not look at it in detail, but it looked like he had two transactions under his name. The site typically double-listed the transactions so I made the assumption that he had one actual payment. It's possible he had two.
2. I don't know, which is why I said it is "almost" certain he met no one on the site. The odds are very significant that he did not, because the site was tough for men. Too many men, very few real women, a man had to spend a lot of money. Many accounts show multiple -- dozens -- of payments. Sink would just not have a realistic chance with the competition paying a lot more money. But, of course, only he could say whether he met someone on the site for sure.
3. I think that is a good idea.
4. I don't know why he did not respond. Many possible reasons come to mind, but I can't know any more than you.
I will not give you my name and contact information. I work in tech; I am not a journalist and do not care about standing by my reporting, and I don't want to get involved in this story any more than as an anonymous commentator. I think that is reasonable. Most of your commentators, including your fans, post anonymously. But I am sure you will agree with me when you look through the account details.
And, yes: I do not dispute your basic point about Mr. Sink being in the paid user database. He's there alright.
Here is the second comment from @5:16 that I inadvertently deleted. Again, my apologies, especially since your comments are well stated and address significant points:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Ashley Madison customers revealed: Scott G. Sink, ...":
@5:16 again here.
I did respond to Mr. Schnauzer's questions in a lengthy post. He did not publish it for some reason, or maybe it did not go through. Here is a shortened version.
I work in tech, not journalism and I do not care too much about these Alabama men. I also prefer to comment anonymously, as most commentators do. I'm just trying to add context, since I am familiar with the AM data. I helped my sister sort things out when my brother in law was included in the leak of the database. I still have the data. Mr. Sink appears to have two payment transactions. The credit card dump typically lists each payment twice, so I just assumed there was one transaction. It's possible there were two.
What your reporting has left out, in my opinion, is that not all AM users are the same. Sink had at most a couple of payments. Other users -- including other users that have been outed here -- had many more payments, like dozens. Once on Ashley Madison, a man had to pay to use the site. And, once he paid, he found himself with a LOT of other paying men, all chasing very few real women. Imagine a bar with 100 men and 20 women, and the men have to pay the bartender just for the chance to talk to the women. And, the men then have to pay separately for each part of the conversation -- you want to talk to a possible hook-up, you pay; you want to hear her response, you pay; etc. In short, you have a lot of competition from other men, and your chances of success are tied to how much you pay. For Sink, he would be at a significant disadvantage compared to men who made dozens of transactions and spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
Given this technical background on how the site worked (all available in the source code which was also dumped, by the way) I think it is very unlikely that Sink met a woman on the site. I don't know that for sure; you would have to ask him and he would have to respond.
I'm glad to hear you will be following up with payment details. In my opinion, that is a major part of any AM profile as it speaks directly to how serious a guy was.
Women on dating sites try to send me nudes, but I just want a picture of their medicine cabinet. I have a very good imagination & can guess what's under that skirt, but I must know what kind of potential psycho I may be dealing with.
LOL, Rob! Thanks for a great comment. I needed a good laugh, and you gave me one.
Robby Scott HIll I've always wanted to ask you this, but did you consume paint chips when you were a child? I agree with a previous commenter in saying don't try to convince LS that posting pictures and information about children is wrong. Many journalists believe the line between ethical and unethical reporting is when you can no longer say you've done everything you can to minimize harm to the victims related to the story. Posting pictures of children in no way minimizes any potential harm to them. The logic is black and white when the reporter makes this choice. However I'm sure LS will give us a lesson shortly on why my statements are incorrect. LS you are incapable of understanding the concept of minimizing harm because you lack empathy. You are not a good person and you lost me as a long time reader. Congratulations, you now have a trashy blog. You're Jerry Springer.
6:25 -- I doubt seriously that you know what most journalists believe. Unlike you, I know a whole bunch of professional journalists, and I worked my ass off to get a degree from what many consider the best J-School in the country. I've never heard any journalist discuss the need to "minimize harm to the victims related to a story." In fact, I've never heard a journalist discuss who is or is not a victim in a story. The professionals I know concentrate on getting the facts and presenting them in an understandable way, often under extreme deadline and space constraints. It's not their job to make value judgments about who is a victim and who might be harmed by the reporting of facts.
Post a Comment