Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,983
- Likes
- 818
so i take it from that reply you support their partner email program targeting to select individuals, who had shown interest in the type of managed account on offer in the advertisement?
A New Low?
- Thread starter The Leopard
- Start date
- Watchers 14
so i take it from that reply you support their partner email program targeting to select individuals, who had shown interest in the type of managed account on offer in the advertisement?
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
You aren't actually being serious are you?
I disagree with perpetual whiners who want to go over every issue here ad-nauseum for weeks on end and to over analyse every response and jump to wild conclusions on the basis of those responses.
Your post is a case in point. I say "FFS stop whining" and you made a massive jump to say "AHA - so you agree with the ad".
2+2 doesn't make 5 LM.
I mean look at this:
PB demands answers! Please prepare a 1000 word essay for him to pick apart so he can send through another 500 questions.
PB does good work here but sometimes, you have to know when a conversation is done and when you have all the answers you can be given.
I don't think anyone with any business sense or common sense expects an answer to the question above. Time to move on.
You have to pick your battles. If you don't, you end up losing credibility just as much as you claim T2W has.
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
Let me add one more thing.
As an 'evil vendor', I have used Oxygene media to send out a mailshot to the members of another forum.
This was before they sent out the one being discussed.
For this reason, that company will never get my business again. Partly because I really disagree with this sort of thing and partly because I don't want to be tarred with the same brush.
Have I whined to them? Sent them an email, demanding answers? Nope, I'm not interested, I don't care, it's the industry.
I voted with my feet and my money.
As an 'evil vendor', I have used Oxygene media to send out a mailshot to the members of another forum.
This was before they sent out the one being discussed.
For this reason, that company will never get my business again. Partly because I really disagree with this sort of thing and partly because I don't want to be tarred with the same brush.
Have I whined to them? Sent them an email, demanding answers? Nope, I'm not interested, I don't care, it's the industry.
I voted with my feet and my money.
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,983
- Likes
- 818
why don't you just answer the question. do you support their partner program relating to superfundsfx? its an easy yes or no.
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,983
- Likes
- 818
interestingly the whole 25 pages of the deleted feedback thread is available to view in it's full glory on google. legals my ****! 
anything contested by their legals could have easily been weeded out, there isn't all that much written directly about them .
anything contested by their legals could have easily been weeded out, there isn't all that much written directly about them .interestingly the whole 25 pages of the deleted feedback thread is available to view in it's full glory on google. legals my ****!
In google cache?
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,983
- Likes
- 818
yes, but not page 1
site:trade2win.com t2w-feedback/153720-superfundfx-t2w-partner-offer
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
Well here's the thing - you didn't ask the question. You made a statement of your presumption with a question mark on the end.
I see that despite me stating that I'd never again do business with the company that sent out the emails, you still need additional clarity. Perhaps you think there is a conspiracy and that I didn't answer your question in one word because I'm hiding something.
So - I will only answer your question(s) on one condition.
That is that you understand that I will not entertain an endless stream of additional questions after answering this one. You can make accusations, you can imply whatever you like. I will answer the questions you put to me in one post and after that, I'm not going to get drawn into a protracted and pointless conversation.
So - if you have anything to ask, please ask your questions.
Lightning McQueen
Moderator
- Messages
- 4,983
- Likes
- 818
no need for your answer, i have the answer from the feedback thread, you were kind of leaning towards not approving i believe. though not really clear cut, though i'm only on page 10.
Sure enough, the thread lives on.
Attachments
Yep, its all there, even the bit where the guy admits falling for it.
What was all the fuss about?
Attachments
the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
obvious innit ?
Which all goes to show you can't hide stuff once it's on the Internet. Which scenario would have been better for superfundfx and trade2win?
1. Delete the thread, cause another uproar, keep this thread going for a few more weeks and still have all the information available from other sources on the Internet.
2. Don't delete the thread and by now it would be on page 4 of the results and probably never mentioned again.
1. Delete the thread, cause another uproar, keep this thread going for a few more weeks and still have all the information available from other sources on the Internet.
2. Don't delete the thread and by now it would be on page 4 of the results and probably never mentioned again.
ChocolateDigestive
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,153
- Likes
- 281
futile adjective
Definition
(of actions) having no effect or achieving nothing; unsuccessful
Attempts to get supplies to the region are futile because troops will not allow the aid convoy to enter the city.
It's quite futile trying to reason with him - he just won't listen.
All my attempts to cheer her up proved futile.
Definition
(of actions) having no effect or achieving nothing; unsuccessful
Attempts to get supplies to the region are futile because troops will not allow the aid convoy to enter the city.
It's quite futile trying to reason with him - he just won't listen.
All my attempts to cheer her up proved futile.
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
lol @ "uproar" - there's only a couple of you still banging this drum now.
...and T2W give you the platform to do the banging, they give you a free reign to go on and on and on and on about it.
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
I see you labour the point...
the hare
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Likes
- 1,282
But do trade2win and superfundfx actually share the same objectives ?
superfundfx's motives are far easier to read, and frankly I'm amazed they aren't taking stronger action against t2w under the circumstances.
Maybe t2w actually want to bring attention to this situation (and this thread is doing just that). The reasons could range from simply acting in their own self interests and generating a little controversy to help improve their traffic, or maybe they are genuinely sorry, and want threads such as this to remain which at least provide an indirect warning to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
On the other hand, maybe t2w shares the same objectives and wants to air brush these events out of history to save embarrassment. We simply dont know.
t2w is possibly in a transitory phase (I think not) but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt in this respect, innocent until proven guilty etc. I think Steve was dealt a very weak hand regarding this particular issue, and however he plays it, he'll lose (and to be fair, so would anyone else dealt those same cards)
I think the bigger issue here is the response from the moderation team, clearly people are not singing from the same hymn sheet.
DionysusToast
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,965
- Likes
- 1,501
Steve
Well-known member
- Messages
- 437
- Likes
- 108
Just a few short replies from me on what has unfolded so far.
PB, you refer to the 6 or 7 instances and whether any lessons have been learned. As I said last night, I was not involved in those so I don't have the full picture. Nevertheless there are lessons to be learned even from the limited information I have, one of these lessons is very simple, it has to stop.
The problem is how we actually apply filters to potential advertisers. Some of them are obvious, we all know they are firms of ill repute and I will never permit us to go near them. You could argue that there are also the 'safe' ones, especially if they are regulated in some way. But, as you have pointed out many times, even that is no guarantee as firms may well be dealt with for such matters by their own regulator.
So where is the line drawn? I know you have offered to help with this process and I would like to consider that offer but we have to have realistic parameters otherwise we might end up ruling everyone out and generating none of the income that keeps the site running.
I'm happy to continue the dialogue though.
I should also add that I am as determined as any decent member would be to stop the real sharks from infesting our waters. I just have not yet figured out the best way of doing it that will satisfy differing needs.
LMcQ , that's a good point about why some things can't be left when others are deleted. There may be a reason I am not aware of but i'll certainly give that some thought as I further develop the policy for dealing with this stuff.
Regarding things being left elsewhere, Google being the example given, there's no motive to that. If something is left behind in any of these situations it is more than likely the removal of it was not requested. That's down to the legal teams involved. As I said last night, there will inevitably be a list of demands and then some negotiation leading to the action being taken. If a firm don't ask us to do something then it is never on the negotiables list so it will not be dealt with.
Thanks for the contributions so far.
Steve
PB, you refer to the 6 or 7 instances and whether any lessons have been learned. As I said last night, I was not involved in those so I don't have the full picture. Nevertheless there are lessons to be learned even from the limited information I have, one of these lessons is very simple, it has to stop.
The problem is how we actually apply filters to potential advertisers. Some of them are obvious, we all know they are firms of ill repute and I will never permit us to go near them. You could argue that there are also the 'safe' ones, especially if they are regulated in some way. But, as you have pointed out many times, even that is no guarantee as firms may well be dealt with for such matters by their own regulator.
So where is the line drawn? I know you have offered to help with this process and I would like to consider that offer but we have to have realistic parameters otherwise we might end up ruling everyone out and generating none of the income that keeps the site running.
I'm happy to continue the dialogue though.
I should also add that I am as determined as any decent member would be to stop the real sharks from infesting our waters. I just have not yet figured out the best way of doing it that will satisfy differing needs.
LMcQ , that's a good point about why some things can't be left when others are deleted. There may be a reason I am not aware of but i'll certainly give that some thought as I further develop the policy for dealing with this stuff.
Regarding things being left elsewhere, Google being the example given, there's no motive to that. If something is left behind in any of these situations it is more than likely the removal of it was not requested. That's down to the legal teams involved. As I said last night, there will inevitably be a list of demands and then some negotiation leading to the action being taken. If a firm don't ask us to do something then it is never on the negotiables list so it will not be dealt with.
Thanks for the contributions so far.
Steve
