Sentry Marketing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> atlash is guanadu's husband.

Whether this is a fact or not, should this be posted?

Just wondering.....

(heart)

If you are not guanadu's husband, then you must be in touch with him. Otherwise. how could your post and his email contain nearly the same content. Please explain how you posted about a check being destroyed within hours on very same day that I sent this information to guanadu's husband?

Where did I claim that I never "blamed a payment on a bad check"? Is this is the same spot where you falsely claimed that I wrote about our clients paying us late? If you want to criticize my company or I, so be it, but you are posting information that is factually incorrect. You've also claimed that I sued you or threatened to sue you, however, you have not provided any information to support this claim.

bgriffin was deactivated because I didn't care for some things that he posted about my company. In the same spirit, he (or any other shopper) can unplug from any mystery shopping company for any reason at any time. Please don't compare your outlandish, histrionic posts with his contributions to this forum.

As far as posting that atlash is guanadu's husband, I posted this because I believe that the members of this form have the right to know when they are being deceived. If this post is out of line, I'll be happy to remove it at the direction of any of the mods.

The fact is that we don't experience more payment issues than any other company our size. Our process has a lot of room for improvement and we are making investments to improve our entire shopper payment process. For the vast majority of our shoppers, this is not an issue.

I am not a moderator. I am asking because, to me, it sounded like you were sharing confidential information.

(heart)

Sentry Marketing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bgriffin was deactivated because I didn't care for
> some things that he posted about my company. In
> the same spirit, he (or any other shopper) can
> unplug from any mystery shopping company for any
> reason at any time. Please don't compare your
> outlandish, histrionic posts with his
> contributions to this forum.


If that is true, then, no offense Dave, but your forum privileges should be revoked. I'm all for MSC owners/employees participating here, so long as it's for providing information and mediation. Not retaliation.

BBird0701

I appreciate your point of view and will take it into account.

I don't know that I see the difference between a shopper deactivating their account with an MSC because they don't like the way a situation was handled and a company doing the same thing. I don't consider it "retaliation", rather, it was a business decision.

I see a big difference in it happening in an interaction outside of the forum, rather than because of an interaction within the forum.

It sets a dangerous precedent of MSCs doing whatever they want and being left unchecked. It sets a precedent of shoppers being afraid to speak out about legitimate issues for fear of retaliation. Oh, I'm sure it happens outside of the forum as well, but, as forums like this one are the only measure of "checks and balances" that shoppers have in regards to keeping MSCs on the up-and-up, we need to protect that and NOT let retaliation rather than mediation happen here. Most MSCs aren't unscrupulous, but for the ones that are, we should be able to speak freely about them and warn other shoppers of potential issues, without fear of retaliation. Losing our voice here (for fear of retaliation) is still losing our voice. We lose that, we don't really have anything left.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 09:53PM by BBird0701.

but deactivating people can have unintended consequences
depending on the shopper. For instance, shopper bob has been doing this
awhile and has completed many thousands of shops.
Bob knows shoppers nationwide and in some areas Bob knows every shopper that
shops that specific area. Now an msc deactivates Bob for a reason
he don't agree with, now all those shoppers Bob knows will be told
to stay away and you end up with the unintended snowball effect.
Or worse, if the shopper wanted to really jam an msc who is up
against an all or nothing deadline, has their shopper friends take
remaining shops and then cancel and/or flake on them last second.
Now msc loses completion bonus at best and worse the whole contract.

I think it would be safe to say that there are way more unscrupulous shoppers than unscrupulous MSCs.

BBird, what do you suppose the percentage is of of false claims made against MSCs vs. number of shoppers for that have been unfairly deactivated for making legitimate claims against an MSC here? Retaliation from angry shoppers is a serious problem for MSC's. Angry shoppers post here, post on Yelp, contact clients, etc...

I constantly speak out against MSCs when they act unprofessionally, my identity here is pretty well known by all of the MSCs that participate in the forum and yet I have not been deactivated by any of them. Why? My guess is that it's because post truthfully and intelligently, and am a good shopper.

I am also willing to bet that shopper bob has not been deactivated either…for the same reasons.

How you present yourself on a public forum is important when it's about an industry that you work in. That goes for both shoppers and MSCs. These companies have a right to make a decision to choose who represents them on shops using whatever criteria they deem necessary because there are a number of problematic shoppers that take an large percentage of the company resources to deal with. It makes good business sense to simply remove those shoppers.

I think it's also safe to say that the vast majority of Sentry shoppers go about their business and don't hassle Dave about the payment schedule. They do their shops, get paid in however long it takes and then move on to the next assignment. Those are the shoppers that an MSC should be putting their time toward.

BBird

I can only speak for myself. For me, it's not what is said, but rather how it is said. When communication with a shopper is kept on a professional level, we almost always are able to resolve the issue in a satisfactory manner. There are recent examples of interactions with forum members dspeakes and deafsigner have had with our company where they communicated an issue to us and we were able to address it to their satisfaction.

I am in complete agreement that retaliation is not appropriate and the forum should be a place to discuss legitimate issues. I also completely agree that a system of checks and balances is appropriate. That being said, what recourse does and MSC, scheduler or editor have when information is posted in public that is slanted, inaccurate or factually incorrect? I've been referred to as a "lowlife", "bully", "capon" (that's a castrated rooster) and "arrogant" on this forum. Is there even one member of the mysteryshopforum community that would continue to complete assignments for an MSC that communicated with them in a similar manner? How about if those comments were posted on a public site for all to see?

Shoppers work hard and deserve to be treated in a respectful and professional manner. I don't think it's unreasonable for MSC's to expect their shoppers to treat them in the same way.

Steve, it's a loop effect. Googling Sentry brings up past threads on this forum and pulls in shoppers who have complaints. Then the new complaints show up on Google and pull in others. The problem (unfairly so, I think) is that even unfounded rants and resolved issues continue to show up on Google as problems because the topics are never changed on the forum even if the issue is worked out. This circle effect isn't going on with other MSCs and I suspect that a few shoppers with grudges are making concerted long time efforts to keep the circle rolling. This is just a guess based on a hunch based on a possibility.

When I was a new forum member and began to speak up for Dave, I was PM'd that there were issues several years back and I remember that at least one forum member has posted "I don't forget". Guess not. I've noticed more recently that Dave is getting more support and he hasn't been the victim of the dogpiling I saw in the recent past. I'm hoping this more reasonable atmosphere will continue.

One of the reasons we hear more about Dave is he addresses the issues involving his companies. Most MSCs ignore any complaints here so the irate threads about them die off quicker. Dave keeps on trying to deal with the problems and that makes him a lot more visible. I can understand most of the MSCs backing off. Who wants to get beat to death on purpose?

Any insults I've seen to that extent were from members who'd already been deactivated. I'm not even for a professional forum setting, and yet I don't believe slander should be allowed to run unchecked. There is a business review site called ConsumerAffairs which does not even allow your post to be finalized without stating your case clearly and providing facts to back them up. I've seen the same happen here, sort of. Posts which provide facts and are stated clearly are taken a lot more seriously than those that just bash, bash, bash without providing facts.

Posts which state "I contacted the MSC owner in regards to payment on X date, about shops performed on Y date, which I believed to be overdue on payment. Rather than answering my questions, the MSC owner deactivated me, and then told me when payment would arrive." are a whole lot different than posts which state "I contacted that d-bag owner of X MSC company, and he was a total lowlife. He told me I'd get paid when I got paid, and then banned me from his site."

I believe posts which state their case clearly and without bashing an MSC hold a lot more ground (and are taken a lot more seriously by readers) than posts like Guanadu's and Atlash's. You'll note that no one sided with them, and plenty have sided with bgriffin.

The issues which others have posted about Sentry, I've not experienced, so I've tried to offer at least my dealings with them as well, so that others can read them in the midst of a Sentry-bashing thread, and realize that not everyone experiences those issues.

I still don't believe that someone should be deactivated because of something which is posted here. The forum should not be an MSC's personal butcher block. Allowing that will create an environment of fear, where members will be afraid to post legitimate issues for fear of potentially losing a considerable stream of income for them.

BBird0701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The forum should not be an MSC's personal
> butcher block. Allowing that will create an
> environment of fear, where members will be afraid
> to post legitimate issues for fear of potentially
> losing a considerable stream of income for them.

You're not wrong and I agree with you. Mostly, except I don't think your statement goes far enough. This forum shouldn't be anybody's personal butcher block. I hope we're not here to destroy each other, regardless of whether we're shoppers, schedulers, or MSCs.

Since this is an open forum anyone can read, I don't see any way to prevent shoppers' posts from having repercussions. How would we prevent that? Most complaints can be associated with shops without much effort. If the complaints are unfounded, then it stands to reason the shopper will be deactivated. If there is a basis to the complaint, perhaps it would have been better to work it out one on one with the MSC rather than bring it here. The repercussions can range from total deactivation to just not being able to land good shops anymore.

Of course, if the shopper has already quit, will never shop for them again, and just wants to trash the MSC -- well, then, this is the place for sure. Even those situations should be considered carefully before heaping it on because those MSCs and schedulers talk to each other just as we shoppers talk to one another.

MDavisnowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If there is a basis to the
> complaint, perhaps it would have been better to
> work it out one on one with the MSC rather than
> bring it here. The repercussions can range from
> total deactivation to just not being able to land
> good shops anymore.

That's what I mean. The "good" BEWARE posts which I've seen have included numerous documented attempts to successfully rectify the situation with the MSC, with no success. Only after reaching no resolution and realizing that no resolution is forthcoming, do they turn here and ask for advice on another way (since theirs isn't working) or post a "Beware." I believe those have a very real place here, and are very valuable, and I'd hate the thought that those people face deactivation just for being brave enough to share.

The ones who can't back their story, who just bash and bash and bash... I don't take as seriously as the above. And I agree, I don't think this should be anyone's butcher block, MSC or shopper. It's not hard to state your case clearly without resorting to bashing.

Yes, I agree that factual posts have a very real place here but sometimes we have situations we cannot work out. I lost some shops with Kern due to a misunderstanding following an automobile accident and as a result got thrown out of an entire section of Maritz shops. I posted about that here because I misunderstood how I was supposed to handle a Maritz shop booked by Kern and I thought that would be useful information. Posting here didn't fix anything for me but it may have been helpful to someone else. I didn't shop that line of shops for Kern/Maritz again, but I think I've picked up one or two other shops for Kern since then. Not certain about that, but I'm for sure not carrying any baggage over it.

Sometimes when we say we tried to work something out with the MSC and it was impossible, what we're really saying is we didn't work it out to our satisfaction. They took a position and they stuck to their guns. We didn't get our way. Well, sometimes it happens. We have to decide if it's worth it to blow up the bridge, or whether we'd like to back off so we can cross the creek now and then.

I'm all in favor of hearing about any issues that come up with MSCs, but I hope I remain aware that not being able to resolve something to shopper satisfaction doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. It means there was a disagreement and I hope I can be objective and not assume one party or the other is always right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2014 03:47AM by MDavisnowell.

I've had numerous conflicts of opinion with MSCs, schedulers, owners... and all but one were resolved successfully. By successfully, I mean that we both stated our positions, acknowledged that the other's position held merit, and most of the time, met somewhere in the middle. I believe that when you are valuable to a company, and that company is valuable to you, win some/lose some is the cost of doing/keeping business with them.

The one that wasn't resolved successfully... I was restricted from doing shops for a client ever again, because I had the nerve to go into labor three weeks early. It was a hard and fast labor, from start to finish- 5 hours, and yet I had the presence of mind to email the scheduler and say "Hey, I may not be able to make these shops today, I think I'm in labor." and then two hours later, emailed again saying "Yep, definitely in labor, please cancel these shops or reschedule 5 days out."

No response (I had my phone with me in the hospital and could still check email)... Instead, when I logged into the MSC site, the shops were off my log and I could no longer see any of them, anywhere in the US.

After numerous emails back and forth, the response I got was basically that I should have had the foresight to not schedule these shops if I knew I wasn't going to be able to complete them (I didn't, obviously) or that I should have performed the shops the day before (They had a three day window, and I went into labor on Day 2) since I knew I wouldn't be able to perform them the next day. (Again, I didn't know!)

I tried everything... I offered to shop the locations a day or two after getting out of the hospital, nope. I offered to do them for base fee (They had been heavily bonused) just to salvage the situation and retain the ability to do those shops in the future,... nope.

The emails rapidly devolved into accusations that I hadn't gone into labor, and was simply making excuses as to why I'd flaked, even though I emailed prior to "flaking." I responded to those emails with a photo of my hospital ID bracelet, showing the Maternity Ward and the date. I'd have sent a picture of myself in a hospital gown and hospital bed holding my newborn, if I thought it'd have done any good, but...no response to my first bit of proof, so I didn't bother.

Two years later, still can't do those shops. I felt it was handled poorly, and a bit unfairly, but I still do other shops for them.

Sometimes their reasons are highly unreasonable, but, in most situations where MSC and I have not seen eye to eye, I can understand their position and concede their point. My above example was not one of them... I still don't agree with their decision.

Bbird, I'm sorry that happened to you and wish it had gone differently. I'm glad you salvaged the relationship and still shop for the company but that would be a tough one for me to suck up. Congratulations on hanging in there.

It kinda sucked, but mostly I just felt sorry for the scheduler, who must have so many flakes/excuses that she can't accept a valid reason even when proof is provided. It really didn't make much of a difference for my household, as my husband is the one who does the shops now, so my household still benefits from the reimbursed product and the shop fee. It's just one less report that I have to type up now!

I learned from it, though. I believe my problem was in not providing proof at the outset of my emails, although my first emails were about being in labor, so not sure how proof could have been provided. Honestly, I probably should have waited until after my daughter was born and then emailed, canceling and asking for a reschedule, and emailing a photo of the hospital ID bracelet straight away. She made her judgement before proof was provided, and didn't budge after. The story might have ended differently had I only waited to email and provided every bit of proof right in the first email, but I wasn't exactly thinking straight while in labor, and was just emailing all of my schedulers for my shops and asking for reschedules. She was the only one who did not reschedule, all of the others for the next week out did.

But, oh well, you live and you learn, and maybe she's learned to give more benefit of the doubt until proof is provided before making judgement. Who knows?!

I dont understand why the msc would still let you do
other shops for them. Makes no sense. If they are going
to ban you for flaking, why just on one client. Seems
foolish.

I don't really care who "sides" with me, that is not the point, this isn't the 7th grade.

Dave, stating that it's not WHAT someone said but rather HOW they said it, is ridiculous. It absolutely matters WHAT is said, especially if what is being said is true, as in the case of bgriffin, and the case of guanadu's "husband" (which, I don't think anyone here is actually sure of that, as guanadu has never said anything about her husband, Dave, you did.)

Why does it matter? Because what you state as factually incorrect are opposite of the reality of what you said here on this very thread- first page you claimed that you never blamed slow payment on a returned check- you DID state that, and then when confronted with *that* reality, you do a 180 and state that you never said you've never blamed a slow pay on a returned check. Just go back and re-read what YOU posted!

This is exactly the sort of thing that shoppers should know, that this particular MSC owner is NOT truthful. He deflects instead. It does not matter what happened to me or what my "story" is, the FACT shown in this very thread is that Dave lies about what he wrote, when we can all see it with our own (I guess, lying) eyes.

Also, from the home page of this site, on the topic of company discussions:


"Discuss the good and bad of mystery shopping companies. Which ones treat you well? Which ones have burned you? Give your feedback here."

I don't think that Sentry Marketing constantly coming in here and berating other people, trying to find their identities, deacvitating them as shoppers because of "how" they re-told their verious stories, falls under this. If anyone is abusing this site, it's this particular MSC.

atlash

You have posted several statements as fact which are, in fact, factually incorrect. When questioned about these statements, you refuse to address them. The mission statement of this site does not give you license to come in here and deceive the mysteryshopforum community.

Exactly where did I post that I've never blamed slow payment on a returned check? Please provide a link to that post? You can't because I never made such a statement. Some checks are returned, destroyed, or disappear each month. And when these issues our brought to our attention, we promptly resolve the issue. We are not perfect. Neither is any other company in any other industry.

Why don't you explain to the members of this community how are you connected to guanadu and how it is that you posted information I emailed to her husband just a few hours after I sent the email.

My exact statement was "For me, it's not what is said, but rather how it is said". I'll stick by this statement. It's one thing to communicate in a pleasant and professional manner and quite another to communicate in an unprofessional, hostile and/or immature manner. If you find that immature, so be it, because I think most rational folks would find it quite reasonable.

I have not berated anyone on this forum. Like many other company representatives, we've responded to issues that have been posted on this site with our side of the story. Nothing more and nothing less.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 09:48PM by Sentry Marketing.

Umm…I feel like I have to point out that Dave/Sentry does not even have a post on the first page of this thread. You can, however, find the following post there:

guanadu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sentry is beyond ridiculous with their payments.
> I've waited as long as 90 days to get paid. I do
> NOT shop for them anymore, my husband will not
> shop for them anymore and a couple of good friends
> have also stopped shopping for them.

Seems like guanadu specifically mentioned her shopper husband in that post, did she not?

Altash, you 'liked' the above post so you should be aware of it. The posting guidelines also say to be honest and add a positive contribution to the community. Do you feel that you have been abiding by those guidelines?

I don't agree with Dave on most things but I will say I agree
with his communication point. How you present something is
9/10th's of the battle. This is true across many places and not
just on a forum.

My apologies, page two, Dave posted:

"I have never once posted in this forum that we have had issue processing checks from our clients. This is simply untrue and unsupported by any post on this forum or any other forum."

And then I copied a post where he did say that from another thread:

"Sentry Marketing
Posts:285
[ PM ]
[Toggle User Visibility]
Our policy is that we pay by check, 30 - 60 days after the assignment is accepted. If a shop was paid 75 - 90 days after completion, it is likely that the check was returned to us or there was another issue with processing of the payment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2014 08:47AM by Sentry Marketing."

Sorry, I am not as technologically savvy as I'd like to be and don't know how to "link" things into my responses. I must have skimmed over that part where guanadu said something about her husband. I still don't know who her husband is, as I know it is most certainly not me. I don't know who guanadu is and I'm not sure why Dave is insisting that I do. He claims that I posted something contained in an email he sent to this person. I have no idea what's he's talking about, but paranoid much? How do I know that Dave isn't "guanadu" and posting this on here as a way to goad others into commenting as a ruse for him to ferret out their identities and then deactivate them too? I know that people create multiple users for online forums, so I suppose I wouldn't put it past him to do such a thing.

Dave (Sentry) spends an inordinate amount of time obsessing on this forum trolling for anything he percieves as negative toward his company, whether it's in fact or in tone. The fact that Dave keeps saying that tone matters more, makes me think he doesn't understand a fundamental architectural phrase of "form follows function". He's being quite pedantic.

I always thought it was true in business to worry less about the loud-mouths, and more about the ones that go away quietly with no explanation, because, word of mouth does more damage. MSC's DO have to worry about both their clients AND their shoppers, but it seems that this company owner spends more of his (free?) time here than other companies. Why? What is he gaining here?

If I were a new shopper and I found this forum and started reading Dave's (Sentry's) comments, I would most likely think twice about shopping for this company before running far, far away.

atlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I copied a post where he did say that
> from another thread:
>
> "Sentry Marketing
> Posts:285
> [ PM ]
>
> Our policy is that we pay by check, 30 - 60 days
> after the assignment is accepted. If a shop was
> paid 75 - 90 days after completion, it is likely
> that the check was returned to us or there was
> another issue with processing of the payment.
>
>
>

This sounds like Dave is saying either the check sent to the shopper was returned to Sentry, or there was some other issue involved with processing the payment.

If you meant to quote a comment supporting your claim about what Dave said, you didn't make it. In the case you quoted, Dave is simply talking about the shopper's check being returned to sender (Sentry) by the USPO. That doesn't have anything to do with checks to Sentry from clients.

You've accused Dave of lying about this and it sounds to me like you're the one making up the stories. I can't recall any comments from Dave that his clients didn't pay him in a timely manner and you haven't proven your case yet.

If getting a check a few days later than you think you're getting a check has you against the wall, maybe you need to reconsider your program. At the least, it would be better for you to work with the companies that pay really quickly so you don't increase your financial stress. I understand about the idea that it's the principal of being paid on time, but when people raise cain about being paid on time it's never about the calendar, it's always about the money.

Anyhow, looking to see that direct quote about Dave saying his clients don't pay him.

Based on all of the commentary about people making up multiple screen names, I'm starting to think that Dave may be masquerading as Atlash, since each post I read from Atlash makes me have more respect for the admirable restraint that Dave has seemingly shown in not calling this poster a lunatic.

How can you accuse someone of being pedantic while at the same time completely misunderstanding what they have written?

(Edited for a typo)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 11:15PM by SteveSoCal.

You're right. "The check was returned to us" must have multiple meanings. Usually when people say that (or did in the past because who really writes checks anymore?) a returned check is meant to convey a "bad" check, meaning, a "bounced" check.

Help me understand exactly how the US Postal Service somehow "returns" checks to Sentry that have been made out to and sent to shoppers, presumably to their mailboxes? How does that happen? Sentry's checks don't require signatures for delivery. Anything can sit in a mailbox unopened for weeks, and I didn't realize that they (USPS) plucked out checks from Sentry to be mailed back to Sentry if said checks remain unopened for a period of time, thus resulting in a slow pay from Sentry.

Curious too is how whenever this issue is brought to light on this forum, Dave responds that "a check was returned", misdirecting as if he is a victim of a whole bunch of bad timing on everyone else's part.

This isn't about not needing the money whenever. If it were not a problem, then this thread would never have been created in the first place. Because it HAS happened to others and continues to happen. And it's never Sentry's fault.

SteveSoCal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With that in mind, here's my question to the
> forum; With many other companies paying slower and
> some being less consistent payers, why does Sentry
> take so much heat for the payment process, and
> just grief in general from the forum members?
>

For the first part of your question. According to my spreadsheet I have worked for approximately 45 companies in the 14 months I have been doing this. Of those 45 companies only 1, Service Sleuth, pays later, 2 pay the same "60 days" and maybe half a dozen others pay the end of the following month, which could push close to 60 days if you shopped on the first of the month. I would guess that of my income this year 75% of it comes from companies who pay between the following week and 30 days max.

As for less consistent payers, I have never worked for Sentry and cannot comment on how consistent they are. Of the 45 or so companies I've worked for I have had to ask about payment once (entirely my fault, I wrote the payment terms down incorrectly in my spreadsheet). I've had a few that were a day or two late but nothing to worry about. What I will say, from a spectator's point of view, is that it appears that Sentry is one of the least consistent payers around, although there are 2 or 3 that (from a spectator's point of view) appear to be worse.

BBird0701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sentry Marketing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bgriffin was deactivated because I didn't care
> for
> > some things that he posted about my company.
> In
> > the same spirit, he (or any other shopper) can
> > unplug from any mystery shopping company for
> any
> > reason at any time. Please don't compare your
> > outlandish, histrionic posts with his
> > contributions to this forum.
>
>
> If that is true, then, no offense Dave, but your
> forum privileges should be revoked. I'm all for
> MSC owners/employees participating here, so long
> as it's for providing information and mediation.
> Not retaliation.

Absolutely true. I was deactivated because someone asked about the company and I replied that I had never worked for them as they only have one client in my area and the fee did not even cover the cost of the meal. Both statements (at the time) were 100% true.

Well, this is stranger and stranger. Of course the US Postal Service doesn't "pluck" mail out of your box and take it back. I would expect them to deny this, and it would never have occurred to me to suggest how ridiculous that would be. You're the only person talking about this so you'll have to answer your own questions about plucked mail.

For whatever reason you weren't paid when you expected to be paid, you have accomplished nothing in your favor with all this uproar. Just how much money are we talking about here, and just exactly how late do you think it was? Have you determined the acceptance date of the report and calculated payment from there? Did you get paid? Are you talking about a job for which you did get paid or a job for which you did not get paid?

Since you and your gang are never going to shop for Sentry again, what difference does it make anyway?

As far as your being married to guanado, you've got to be hooked up tight in that circle some way or the other to know the contents of her husband's emails. You're obviously part of the group around guanado, who said that she and her husband and her friends have stopped shopping for Dave. At least I remember that's what she said but I not doing a search back to confirm my memory.

Looking at the way you folks handled this I can only imagine what kind of abuse you heaped on Dave one on one. I'm pretty sure he's excited you're not shopping for him anymore. What a relief.