 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Sorry, Harvey & Paul.
for the newbies - this is poor brad's third go round, so let's just parse for factual truths here: Brad Sherback wrote: > > I am truly sorry for sending you a e-mail. and well he should be. in previous incarnations, brad resorted to email, and was told in no uncertain terms to cease and desist - it is a violation of aup/tos with most isp's to continue to email someone who has said they do not wish to receive such. > > I was replying to your posts, and hit the wrong reply button. It was not my > intention to send an e-mail. For this I am sorry. while there is no reason to disbelieve this, remember that spamboy has years of experiance including being a webmaster - so at best he's sloppy as all get out! he sends both of us an email and doesn't notice that it IS an email instead of a newsgroup post...uh-huh... > > If it was not for Harveys' fast reply back, I would have never noticed the > error. similar excuse used in the past. > > I would reply back to him, but his love for me, stops me from doing so. So I > am replying for all to see and read. needless to say this, is sarcastic tongue in cheek on the part of the spammer. > > As I said in my last post over one (1) year ago, I am truly sorry for the > childish actions of which I was apart of over two (2) years ago. As I said > then, I do not wish to pick up where we left off. but come back he did, with the same old tired trick - so we can use that as a fairly accurate gauge of his true intent... > > I posted in this newsgroup and others with the story that I wanted people to > visit a site and tell me what you think about the products and left a link > to the products. and once again spamboy edits the facts - what he posted was several messages stating that he was considering 'buying' a product, and wanted folks to comment with their opinion...all the time he was the webmaster for the family company and selling the the very products he said he was going to 'buy'... later did he also post messages asking fo 'information' like this current post - and of course, each time it was because the company has that very product for sale...sheeesh. > > I was wrong to post that link. The truth was, I was not looking for sales, I > was look to boost my standings in search engines. By posting in the > newsgroups, it counts as a quality link and would helped my standings. boost his standing? lying about who he was...search engines keying to the site...for sales... > > I then, attacked the people which informed me of my wrong doing. I did this > because I was not happy with the actions by which they did it. gee the charter says no sales - he tries to do just that and when rebuffed, resorts to a virtual campaign of invective as retaliation - more than once mind you...continued it for many months did our little spammer... and now he returns pulling the same thing - my, such a coincedance! lololol >This fight > went beyond this newsgroup and I even talked with the people that started > this newsgroup about adding a monitor, so this type of action or fighting > would never happen again. lololol of course you did! such a ridiculous claim - you had to be shown how to even find the original charter newbie. you posted to several other groups looking to see if you could institute a moderated charter, as a 'redo'- talked to the people who started it...lololololololol - found out you could not, but also never bothered to actually file for a 'new' group that would be moderated...after all, that would actually involve some work on your part that wouldn't generate any increase in sales, so why bother? and let's not forget the actual reason for your quest - you didn't like getting stopped when you tried to promote your company products here...lololol > > The fight ended shortly after a member of this newsgroup had personal > threatened the people (person) at the head company that my family is apart > of (yes, I know who you we). The company then threatened to take legal > action. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA let me address this as i am one of those involved: a) at that time 'you' were not a distributor, only the webmaster. 'you' were using the company information and tm's - this was a violation of company procedures and you were required to cease. b) you then returned - not using the 'direct' info - and tried to use an 'end run' game...so complaints were filed once again - often - - at first, the company representatives stated that they would not get 'involved' with newsgroup issues. they were informed ( more like promised!) that in that case - their exact words, denying responsibility for the actions of the employee of their distributor, would be posted as a quote whenever you wrote here... this was not acceptable to them, and they 'threatened' legal action - a whole lot of huff-n-puff they were informed to go right ahead - posting the exact words of the company rep was not legal problem in any manner whatsoever - except for any embarrassment they felt for 'being' qouted in the first place that is... and nothing further was ever heard about it - perhaps that is becuase there was no grounds for legal action to begin with???? lololol and, i'm sure just by coincedance, that was also just days before you stopped posting... > > I am done with this fight. what 'fight' is that spamboy? that you got outed once again for the spammer that you are? >I plan on following my own suggestions and just > report the wrongful action to the persons ISP. ah yes, jsut like last time - and you will find that things haven't changed - you spam - by any devious means - and you will be rebuffed... to complain about that ( wrongful action indeed! - lololol) will only be cause for further mirth - and i can assure you, that you - the spammer - will still have no standing with any reputable isp...like my own for instance. remember how much luck you had the last time? - lololol > > I have no issues with anyone and wish to keep it that way. then you will of course, not return... > > thanks, > Brad no, thank you, for once again showing that spammers are both devious and stupid and that they lie... paul
"Paul T. Holland" news:40A13840.82E038D4@bellatlantic.net... > for the newbies - this is poor brad's third go round, so let's just > parse for factual truths here: > > > > > > The fight ended shortly after a member of this newsgroup had personal > > threatened the people (person) at the head company that my family is apart > > of (yes, I know who you we). The company then threatened to take legal > > action. > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA > > let me address this as i am one of those involved: > > a) at that time 'you' were not a distributor, only the webmaster. 'you' > were using the company information and tm's - this was a violation of > company procedures and you were required to cease. > > b) you then returned - not using the 'direct' info - and tried to use an > 'end run' game...so complaints were filed once again - often - - > > at first, the company representatives stated that they would not get > 'involved' with newsgroup issues. > > they were informed ( more like promised!) that in that case - their > exact words, denying responsibility for the actions of the employee of > their distributor, would be posted as a quote whenever you wrote > here... > > this was not acceptable to them, and they 'threatened' legal action - a > whole lot of huff-n-puff > > > they were informed to go right ahead - posting the exact words of the > company rep was not legal problem in any manner whatsoever - except for > any embarrassment they felt for 'being' qouted in the first place that > is... > > and nothing further was ever heard about it - perhaps that is becuase > there was no grounds for legal action to begin with???? lololol > > and, i'm sure just by coincedance, that was also just days before you > stopped posting... Just a little sidebar on this. I was another of the people involved in the complaint to the company that Brad distributes for. I pointed out in several emails to the head of marketing to that company the terrible reputation that Brad's actions were making for the company, and strongly suggested that he rein Brad in before he destroyed their credibility altogether. I asked, as a member of numerous online health groups, whether the company encouraged its distributors to engage in spamming, so that I could pass that information along to the thousands of people who read those groups. I was assured that the company did not support spam, and I suggested that, if that was so, he should notify Brad that he was in violation of the company's policy. Shortly therafter, Brad stopped posting. It was mere coincidence that I became involved the first time, as it is that I have come across this thread today. But I would be more than happy to give the company in question a call and a few emails to notify them that Brad is again in violation of their rules for distributors, and suggest that this time some stronger action might be necessary - like revoking his distributorship. Terming this kind of fight against unprincipled (and stupid!) marketing "threatening" is ludicrous, but if Brad would care to put a name and some other identifying information to his slanderous allegation, I'm sure someone's attorney would be happy to see whether it would be actionable. Ball's in your court, Brad. Katherine
Well done Katherine. A woman after my own heart. Well done. Harv "Katherine Wolfe" news:cceha702usf@enews4.newsguy.com... > > "Paul T. Holland" > news:40A13840.82E038D4@bellatlantic.net... > > for the newbies - this is poor brad's third go round, so let's just > > parse for factual truths here: > > > > > > > > > > The fight ended shortly after a member of this newsgroup had personal > > > threatened the people (person) at the head company that my family is > apart > > > of (yes, I know who you we). The company then threatened to take legal > > > action. > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA > > > > let me address this as i am one of those involved: > > > > a) at that time 'you' were not a distributor, only the webmaster. 'you' > > were using the company information and tm's - this was a violation of > > company procedures and you were required to cease. > > > > b) you then returned - not using the 'direct' info - and tried to use an > > 'end run' game...so complaints were filed once again - often - - > > > > at first, the company representatives stated that they would not get > > 'involved' with newsgroup issues. > > > > they were informed ( more like promised!) that in that case - their > > exact words, denying responsibility for the actions of the employee of > > their distributor, would be posted as a quote whenever you wrote > > here... > > > > this was not acceptable to them, and they 'threatened' legal action - a > > whole lot of huff-n-puff > > > > > > they were informed to go right ahead - posting the exact words of the > > company rep was not legal problem in any manner whatsoever - except for > > any embarrassment they felt for 'being' qouted in the first place that > > is... > > > > and nothing further was ever heard about it - perhaps that is becuase > > there was no grounds for legal action to begin with???? lololol > > > > and, i'm sure just by coincedance, that was also just days before you > > stopped posting... > > Just a little sidebar on this. I was another of the people involved in the > complaint to the company that Brad distributes for. I pointed out in > several emails to the head of marketing to that company the terrible > reputation that Brad's actions were making for the company, and strongly > suggested that he rein Brad in before he destroyed their credibility > altogether. > > I asked, as a member of numerous online health groups, whether the company > encouraged its distributors to engage in spamming, so that I could pass that > information along to the thousands of people who read those groups. I was > assured that the company did not support spam, and I suggested that, if that > was so, he should notify Brad that he was in violation of the company's > policy. Shortly therafter, Brad stopped posting. > > It was mere coincidence that I became involved the first time, as it is that > I have come across this thread today. But I would be more than happy to > give the company in question a call and a few emails to notify them that > Brad is again in violation of their rules for distributors, and suggest that > this time some stronger action might be necessary - like revoking his > distributorship. > > Terming this kind of fight against unprincipled (and stupid!) marketing > "threatening" is ludicrous, but if Brad would care to put a name and some > other identifying information to his slanderous allegation, I'm sure > someone's attorney would be happy to see whether it would be actionable. > > Ball's in your court, Brad. > > Katherine > >
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:44:22 -0700, "Katherine Wolfe" >Terming this kind of fight against unprincipled (and stupid!) marketing >"threatening" is ludicrous, but if Brad would care to put a name and some >other identifying information to his slanderous allegation, I'm sure >someone's attorney would be happy to see whether it would be actionable. > >Ball's in your court, Brad. > >Katherine > I'm sure he'll take note Related Discussion: Re: Aspartame (Equal) and Diabetes... (1 posts) 'Low-Carb' Labels Create Confusion for People with Diabetes (1 posts) Psyllium (2 posts) Diabetic neuropathy (1 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives Temporomandibular disorders / iron Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy Health Care Providers HMO
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
