atlash
I think you should take a long look in the mirror before accusing anyone of obfuscating, backtracking and pathological behavior. Any reasonable person reading your comments will see that you refuse to answer direct inquires about inconsistencies in your story and that your purpose for posting is not to resolve an issue, but rather to slander my company and dissuade others from accepting assignments from us. I'd say that your need to post over 20 times in this thread could easily be interpreted as "pathological" as well as the need to attack any forum member that posts anything remotely resembling support of my company or I.
You've made a lot of claims about my company and I are that are simply untrue. You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own set of facts. The truth is the truth and lies are lies. You owe the other members of this forum the respect of posting information that is factually correct and you have not do so. When you get questioned by members of this forum, you respond by attacking and attempting to marginalize them. It's your prerogative to remain anonymous, but when you do so and post information that is outlandish and hard to believe, don't complain when some members of the forum question that accuracy of what's been posted and your motives.
It is true that for a variety of reasons previously discussed, you were paid 15 to 20 days late for a few assignments. You were, in fact, paid for every assignment you completed for our company. It's easy to make claims from behind an anonymous user id, but it is also cowardly. You've been very clear about your stance on posting factual information, not caring about not only what is said but how it is said, and your overall goal in participating in this thread. I think everyone gets the fact that you don't like Sentry Marketing and will never shop for us again.
atlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm so tired of the refrain of "back it up with
> facts" when "the facts" are scrutinized under
> Dave's skewed lense. There are the shoppers'
> "facts" and there is Dave's. And if Dave says a
> shopper is histrionic, then that is the "fact" as
> related herein. How do we get to "prove a
> negative" when we don't choose to share the
> details of our stories so Dave can then try to
> pick those stories apart because he has a
> pathological need to prove himself here, and the
> reward is something along the lines of "you didn't
> tell us your story = you aren't sharing 'facts' =
> you're being dishonest and negative = what you
> have to say is irrelevant"? That is a very uneven
> standard. Dave has all his "facts"an he
> backtracks, he obfuscate, and upon challenge, he
> calls you out as if you have some larger, more
> sinister agenda when all you're doing is relating
> your experience without trying to give away so
> many detail so that Dave can identify you, as he
> notoriously does. Not right. Not right at all.
> Don't like what's said about you on the Internet?
> How 'bout not reading it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2014 11:51AM by Sentry Marketing.