Excuse the interruption.

Private Eyes, DorothyA, dwater, mojitosmommy, et al ~ This forum has a few guidelines, which are posted ~ "Do not reveal the clients of mystery shopping companies." Any post, or quoted post, which names MSP and client should be edited.

Thank you!

sorry, done and done.

Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excuse the interruption.
>
> Private Eyes, DorothyA, dwater, mojitosmommy, et
> al ~ This forum has a few guidelines, which are
> posted ~ "Do not reveal the clients of mystery
> shopping companies." Any post, or quoted post,
> which names MSP and client should be edited.
>
> Thank you!

Charlene,
Private Eyes has NEVER dropped ANY shopper from our "list" over registering twice. Nor would I ever reply to anyone with a statement like "It is assumed that you did thhis on purpose to defraud the company."
If you cannot provide me with that original email, including who it was from and when, I will assume this is a case of mistaken identity. We do not 'drop' shoppers, and if we ever did, we would not think that registering twice is indicative of fraud in any way.
We would sincelrly appreciate it if you would clarify your research.


charlene4047 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It astonishes me to see that Private Eyes is not
> in favor of making assumptions. Some time ago I
> was notified that I was dropped from their list
> because I had registered twice. It explicitly
> stated that "It is assumed that you did thhis on
> purpose to defraud the company." I did NOT do this
> on purpose, I was a new shopper and had gotten a
> dedicated email address. I had mistakenly signed
> up with several companies using both addresses.
> All the rest notified me and gave me the
> opportunity to correct my error. The only one that
> ASSUMED I did it for some dishonest reason and
> severed communication with me was Private Eyes. I
> realize that mistakes are made, but the letter
> they sent me said to me that they value their
> shoppers not at all, but hold them in suspicion
> and watch carefully for them to show their
> dishonesty. I prefer not to work with companies
> that have that mindset.

*Private Eyes never said that we were almost paid in full, and did state in July that we still had an unpaid invoice out from the Freeman Group*
dwater~
It is not helpful to anyone to misquote others. I never said that I, "had been almost paid in full????" What I did say was, "We cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due." Not only is this completely different than how you quoted me, but it was posted on July 29th, which was almost two months ago (just enough time to see that they did not remit payment to us for their last invoice). Presumably I was left unpaid because they did not appreciate my posting our opinion of their company and/or the personal contact information for their officers. In any event, I will discuss anything you like, but I should not have to revisit old posts in order to prove that I am being misquoted. The bottom line is that Private Eyes ended up being unpaid, and I knew well that I was provoking that possibility by publicly posting my knowledge of the Freeman Group's behavior and my opinions.

water Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought in an earlier post on volition you said
> you had been almost paid in full????
>
> So which is it?

In addition:
*Private Eyes is aware, and is taking action, regarding Freeman not removing our names/contact info from their site*
Regarding the posts from forum members stalerting us that Private Eyes is sill listed as a contact on Freeman's SASSIE site, we have requested mutiple times that they remove any names or emails associated wih Private Eyes, to no avail.
We will continue to hound them until this is done.

*Private Eyes only scheduled some hotel locations, and had no involvement with any other clients of the Freeman Group*
Regarding the forum members that are associating us with shops that we never scheduled, or clients that we never scheduled for, please understand that the ONLY account that we ever had any involvement with was with *some* shops for *one* of their hotel lines. We did not handle all of their hotels, and we scheduled nothing but some hotels. Please do not associat Private Eyes with any shops that we did not have any involvement with. We handled one account for this company.

*Private Eyes' timeline*
Private Eyes scheduled for The Freeman Group from March, 2012 to May, 2012. Any shops scheduled outside of that timeframe was not scheduled by Private Eyes.

*Private Eyes has already furnished the proper sources with all of the information we had on the unpaid shopper payments from the Freeman Group. Private Eyes has also posted contact information at [www.mysteryshopforum.com].

We appreciate all of the positive feedback that we have received from the involved shoppers. We urge the shoppers that have been paid, or have written us to show their appreciation of our efforts, to not be intimidated from posting their positive feedback publicly. Feel free to email me if you need any further information or would like to discuss this matter and it's facts and timelines. I accept and respond to all emails and will not stop offering any help that I can to any involved parties!

Thank you.
Lysa@privateeyesonline.net

PrivateEyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *Private Eyes never said that we were almost paid
> in full, and did state in July that we still had
> an unpaid invoice out from the Freeman Group*
> dwater~
> It is not helpful to anyone to misquote others. I
> never said that I, "had been almost paid in
> full????" What I did say was, "We cannot yet know
> if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's
> non or late payment tactics, as we have only one
> small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."
> Not only is this completely different than how you
> quoted me, but it was posted on July 29th, which
> was almost two months ago (just enough time to see
> that they did not remit payment to us for their
> last invoice).

dwater did not QUOTE or misQUOTE PrivateEyes:

dwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought in an earlier post on volition you said
> you had been almost paid in full????
>
> So which is it?

dwater said dwater THOUGHT PrivateEyes said it "had been almost paid in full." I am quoting what dwater posted. dwater did not quote PrivateEyes.

According to PrivateEyes, what it said was it had "only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due." Here, PrivateEyes was quoting itself.

Additionally, how was dwater's belief that PrivateEyes "had been almost paid in full" COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than PrivateEyes saying it had "only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due?" To me, the two statements were quite similar, though not exactly the same.

I can understand why PrivateEyes is upset but it loses credibility, at least in my eyes, when it accuses dwater of misquoting when dwater never quoted anything in the first place, and when it claims two similar statements are "completely different."

HUH?

What a bizarre post.

When you posted that you had just one small invoice outstanding..... how is that such a stretch to assume you had been paid almost in full?

Why even mention that it was a small amount outstanding if you didnt want to convey to everyone that you had been paid most of what you were owed.

dwater~
On July 29th, I posted. "We are both disappointed and offended that this entire situation took place, and we cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."
On September, 14th, I posted, "Private Eyes has too not been paid our last invoice from the Freeman Group".
On September 15th, you responded with, "I thought in an earlier post on volition you said you had been almost paid in full???? So which is it?"
You should not need to "stretch to assume" if we were paid in full vs. not. I publicized the update here.
At this point, I can't help but think you are trying to provoke. These details have been clearly presented.


dwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When you posted that you had just one small
> invoice outstanding..... how is that such a
> stretch to assume you had been paid almost in
> full?

I think if you re-read what and how it occured, it might become clear
This is not so much a matter of what was said, but when.
When I said we had one outstanding invoice, and then two months later said we never received it, dwater said "I thought in an earlier post on volition you said you had been almost paid in full???? So which is it?"
A. There we two months in between, so obviously there would have to be an update since July.
B. dwater asked, "So which is it?", as to imply I'd given two differnt answers.
Bottom line is that we had one last (smaller) invoice that was not paid. And, I needed time to pass before fairly reporting that it was not received. We did not receive it, so I said so. This should not be confusing. It was made clear to the forum.
dwater's question asking, "Which is it????" clearly implied that they wanted it to seem as if I was giving two different answers when I was not.

BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PrivateEyes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *Private Eyes never said that we were almost
> paid
> > in full, and did state in July that we still
> had
> > an unpaid invoice out from the Freeman Group*
> > dwater~
> > It is not helpful to anyone to misquote others.
> I
> > never said that I, "had been almost paid in
> > full????" What I did say was, "We cannot yet
> know
> > if we too will fall victim to The Freeman
> Group's
> > non or late payment tactics, as we have only
> one
> > small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."
> > Not only is this completely different than how
> you
> > quoted me, but it was posted on July 29th,
> which
> > was almost two months ago (just enough time to
> see
> > that they did not remit payment to us for their
> > last invoice).
>
> dwater did not QUOTE or misQUOTE PrivateEyes:
>
> dwater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought in an earlier post on volition you
> said
> > you had been almost paid in full????
> >
> > So which is it?
>
> dwater said dwater THOUGHT PrivateEyes said it
> "had been almost paid in full." I am quoting what
> dwater posted. dwater did not quote PrivateEyes.
>
> According to PrivateEyes, what it said was it had
> "only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet
> due." Here, PrivateEyes was quoting itself.
>
> Additionally, how was dwater's belief that
> PrivateEyes "had been almost paid in full"
> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than PrivateEyes saying it
> had "only one small, left-over invoice that is not
> yet due?" To me, the two statements were quite
> similar, though not exactly the same.
>
> I can understand why PrivateEyes is upset but it
> loses credibility, at least in my eyes, when it
> accuses dwater of misquoting when dwater never
> quoted anything in the first place, and when it
> claims two similar statements are "completely
> different."

I do not believe I need to re-read anything because what is happening here, in my opinion, is very clear. However, I did just re-read what you and dwater posted out of fairness. My opinions have not changed.

WHAT was said was at least as important as WHEN it was said. HOW it was said was important, too.

1. You said, approximately two months ago, that you were owed "only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."
2. dwater said, days ago, that dwater thought you said you "had been almost paid in full."
3. You are now saying that Freeman still has not paid that smaller invoice.

Conclusion: There is no conflict in WHAT was said regarding the status of payment between Freeman and PrivateEyes. The WHEN is actually not an issue. Yes, you had to wait to find out whether Freeman would pay you in a timely fashion, so you did not provide an update until recently. However, the fact that it turned out Freeman is treating you like it treats so many shoppers does not change the WHAT, i.e. Freeman still owes you on one small invoice and therefore you have been almost paid in full. Arguing that what dwater said was completely different than what you said and are saying hurts your credibility.

On the other hand, you accused dwater of misquoting you. In fact, dwater never quoted you. So, your accusation (WHAT) was false. WHEN and HOW don't even play a role here.

The bottom line, as I see it, is you do/did not care for the tone (HOW) of dwater's posts.

You wrote, "dwater's question asking, 'Which is it????' clearly implied that they wanted it to seem as if I was giving two different answers when I was not."

I am not dwater and do not know what, if anything, dwater was implying by that question and the multiple question marks. In my opinion, your conclusion of what dwater was implying is reasonable and you have every right to be upset and to defend yourself. However, also in my opinion only, that does not give you the right to accuse dwater of misquoting you.

You have still not acknowledged that you misspoke when you accused dwater of misquoting you, and that hurts your credibility.


PrivateEyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think if you re-read what and how it occured, it
> might become clear
> This is not so much a matter of what was said, but
> when.
> When I said we had one outstanding invoice, and
> then two months later said we never received it,
> dwater said "I thought in an earlier post on
> volition you said you had been almost paid in
> full???? So which is it?"
> A. There we two months in between, so obviously
> there would have to be an update since July.
> B. dwater asked, "So which is it?", as to imply
> I'd given two differnt answers.
> Bottom line is that we had one last (smaller)
> invoice that was not paid. And, I needed time to
> pass before fairly reporting that it was not
> received. We did not receive it, so I said so.
> This should not be confusing. It was made clear to
> the forum.
> dwater's question asking, "Which is it????"
> clearly implied that they wanted it to seem as if
> I was giving two different answers when I was not.
>
>
> BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PrivateEyes Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > *Private Eyes never said that we were almost
> > paid
> > > in full, and did state in July that we still
> > had
> > > an unpaid invoice out from the Freeman Group*
> > > dwater~
> > > It is not helpful to anyone to misquote
> others.
> > I
> > > never said that I, "had been almost paid in
> > > full????" What I did say was, "We cannot yet
> > know
> > > if we too will fall victim to The Freeman
> > Group's
> > > non or late payment tactics, as we have only
> > one
> > > small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."
>
> > > Not only is this completely different than
> how
> > you
> > > quoted me, but it was posted on July 29th,
> > which
> > > was almost two months ago (just enough time
> to
> > see
> > > that they did not remit payment to us for
> their
> > > last invoice).
> >
> > dwater did not QUOTE or misQUOTE PrivateEyes:
> >
> > dwater Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I thought in an earlier post on volition you
> > said
> > > you had been almost paid in full????
> > >
> > > So which is it?
> >
> > dwater said dwater THOUGHT PrivateEyes said it
> > "had been almost paid in full." I am quoting
> what
> > dwater posted. dwater did not quote
> PrivateEyes.
> >
> > According to PrivateEyes, what it said was it
> had
> > "only one small, left-over invoice that is not
> yet
> > due." Here, PrivateEyes was quoting itself.
> >
> > Additionally, how was dwater's belief that
> > PrivateEyes "had been almost paid in full"
> > COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than PrivateEyes saying it
> > had "only one small, left-over invoice that is
> not
> > yet due?" To me, the two statements were quite
> > similar, though not exactly the same.
> >
> > I can understand why PrivateEyes is upset but
> it
> > loses credibility, at least in my eyes, when it
> > accuses dwater of misquoting when dwater never
> > quoted anything in the first place, and when it
> > claims two similar statements are "completely
> > different."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2012 07:33PM by BusyBeeBuzzBuzzBuzz.

With all due respect, busy, I am confident that I have clearly represented my point to the forum.
I'll say this (again) and then be done with it.

The bottom line question to dwater is why they would have said, "I thought in an earlier post on volition you said you had been almost paid in full???? So which is it?" in response to my providing an update of our our invoice remittance. Because, of course there would be an update two months later.

Additionally, my saying on July 29th, "We are both disappointed and offended that this entire situation took place, and we cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due." is not the same thing as being "almost paid in full". Further, I doubt that shoppers that have received some money from Freeman, but not all, are considering themselves to have been "almost paid in full".
Similar statements, maybe, but "almost paid in full????" can indicate satisfaction, and "We cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due." is a stated fact without implication either way.

IF what dwater said was so similar to what I said, then WHY did they need to ask it at all when I had supposedly already said it?

The purpose of my reply was to clarify this. Not to split a previously split hair even more.
I have volunteered facts regarding if and when we were paid. There was nothing in that that should have provoked a reasonable question.
Private Eyes was not paid it's final invoice from the Freeman Group. Period.
In my opinion, to continue having to repeat my original point again and again, despite it's responses or attempted rebuttal, seems petty, and disrespectful to the forum and my intelligence.

You posted "we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due"

Why wouldn't a reasonable person reading that think that you had been paid most of the money owed to you? (i. e. "almost in full")


PrivateEyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all due respect, busy, I am confident that I
> have clearly represented my point to the forum.
> I'll say this (again) and then be done with it.
>
> The bottom line question to dwater is why they
> would have said, "I thought in an earlier post on
> volition you said you had been almost paid in
> full???? So which is it?" in response to my
> providing an update of our our invoice remittance.
> Because, of course there would be an update two
> months later.
>
> Additionally, my saying on July 29th, "We are both
> disappointed and offended that this entire
> situation took place, and we cannot yet know if we
> too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or
> late payment tactics, as we have only one small,
> left-over invoice that is not yet due." is not the
> same thing as being "almost paid in full".
> Further, I doubt that shoppers that have received
> some money from Freeman, but not all, are
> considering themselves to have been "almost paid
> in full".
> Similar statements, maybe, but "almost paid in
> full????" can indicate satisfaction, and "We
> cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The
> Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we
> have only one small, left-over invoice that is not
> yet due." is a stated fact without implication
> either way.
>
> IF what dwater said was so similar to what I said,
> then WHY did they need to ask it at all when I had
> supposedly already said it?
>
> The purpose of my reply was to clarify this. Not
> to split a previously split hair even more.
> I have volunteered facts regarding if and when we
> were paid. There was nothing in that that should
> have provoked a reasonable question.
> Private Eyes was not paid it's final invoice from
> the Freeman Group. Period.
> In my opinion, to continue having to repeat my
> original point again and again, despite it's
> responses or attempted rebuttal, seems petty, and
> disrespectful to the forum and my intelligence.

What I see you do repeatedly in this thread is focus on what you feel, infer, and suspect (be it about how and why dwater wrote what dwater wrote, or why Freeman did not pay you), and try to impose your views and interpretations on others. You present them as facts when they are opinions. Good thing these are just posts and not MS reports.

At the same time, you do not address the fact that you false accused dwater of misquoting you.

Yes, you have stated your points. As is the case of all posts on a public forum, it is now up to each individual reader to decide whether they agree.

PrivateEyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all due respect, busy, I am confident that I
> have clearly represented my point to the forum.
> I'll say this (again) and then be done with it.
>
> The bottom line question to dwater is why they
> would have said, "I thought in an earlier post on
> volition you said you had been almost paid in
> full???? So which is it?" in response to my
> providing an update of our our invoice remittance.
> Because, of course there would be an update two
> months later.
>
> Additionally, my saying on July 29th, "We are both
> disappointed and offended that this entire
> situation took place, and we cannot yet know if we
> too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or
> late payment tactics, as we have only one small,
> left-over invoice that is not yet due." is not the
> same thing as being "almost paid in full".
> Further, I doubt that shoppers that have received
> some money from Freeman, but not all, are
> considering themselves to have been "almost paid
> in full".
> Similar statements, maybe, but "almost paid in
> full????" can indicate satisfaction, and "We
> cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The
> Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we
> have only one small, left-over invoice that is not
> yet due." is a stated fact without implication
> either way.
>
> IF what dwater said was so similar to what I said,
> then WHY did they need to ask it at all when I had
> supposedly already said it?
>
> The purpose of my reply was to clarify this. Not
> to split a previously split hair even more.
> I have volunteered facts regarding if and when we
> were paid. There was nothing in that that should
> have provoked a reasonable question.
> Private Eyes was not paid it's final invoice from
> the Freeman Group. Period.
> In my opinion, to continue having to repeat my
> original point again and again, despite it's
> responses or attempted rebuttal, seems petty, and
> disrespectful to the forum and my intelligence.

Good day to all, I am a mystery shopper from the Netherlands. Visited ......... in Amsterdam on the 1st of May this year for the Freeman Group and like most of you, still did not get paid. Send many emails...which are never answered. Seems like people disappear there by the day. To me it is even more difficult, because the outstandig amount would all be spend on phone calls...What I do notice and maybe this will not make me beloved is how the tone of the postings changed here and as a Dutch lawyer myself I really do not like this. The way you all seem to jump on Private Eyes and the people who work for them. From their posts it seems to me, till the contrary has been proven, that we really have to assume they acted in good faith...they have the courage to post it all here, at least they have the decency to tell us how they fell into the same trap we all did and what I see happening here is the fact that these people are now becoming a sort of scapegoat and distracting completely from the fact that it is Freeman organisation that is to blame, not Private Eyes. What are you all up to, trying to dissect one line, one sentence in all these posts to prove Private Eyes wrong? I can only imagine the pleasure the people at Freeman Group must have that all of the attention now is on one of their subcontractors and one misunderstanding about a line of a small invoice being paid or not. I hardly think that to be fair. Dear Private Eyes, I think I understand your situation as much as I do the situation of the many other people that worked for the Freeman Group I honestly have no idea if you scheduled my shop or not, only wanted to post here that I really don't see the point in putting all this blame on Private Eyes. Thank you, CJJ

I see the discussion being based on two phrases which mean very close to the same thing, but each side feeling they were right. It is probably a case where both were mostly right, but neither was willing to acknowledge that the other person might be correct, also.

I do respect Private Eyes for making the effort to communicate. This has been a long and drawn out problem.

I have not been paid $121.56 for a job done on 6/20. Kim does not respond to any of my emails, nor does Shanna, so on Friday, I filed a complain with the BBB of Dallas. If you try to call the office, not one person will pick up their phone. We'll see what happens...

Geez guys...Shoppers are out money. A scheduling company is out money. What the heck does anyone want to prove by fighting with each other? It's ridiculous. The scheduling company was implicated by a poster when they did not have anything to do with the account in question. Then others jumped in to add to the fray.

Just so petty. Cut it out.

I see it happen too often...scheduling and MS companies are seen as the enemy. It isn't an us vs. them scenario...we are in this together. Freeman is failing to honor contracts -- contracts to at least 1 scheduling company as well as to many shoppers. Sniping at each other won't change this and doesn't make anyone look good.

Now play nice.

Apparently the scheduling company got paid most of the money they earned while the shoppers got completely stiffed.........

One of those things is not like the other.



Karen IL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez guys...Shoppers are out money. A scheduling
> company is out money. What the heck does anyone
> want to prove by fighting with each other? It's
> ridiculous. The scheduling company was implicated
> by a poster when they did not have anything to do
> with the account in question. Then others jumped
> in to add to the fray.
>
> Just so petty. Cut it out.
>
> I see it happen too often...scheduling and MS
> companies are seen as the enemy. It isn't an us
> vs. them scenario...we are in this together.
> Freeman is failing to honor contracts -- contracts
> to at least 1 scheduling company as well as to
> many shoppers. Sniping at each other won't change
> this and doesn't make anyone look good.
>
> Now play nice.

Karen IL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez guys...Shoppers are out money. A scheduling
> company is out money. What the heck does anyone
> want to prove by fighting with each other? It's
> ridiculous. The scheduling company was implicated
> by a poster when they did not have anything to do
> with the account in question. Then others jumped
> in to add to the fray.
>
Respectfully, I must disagree. The scheduling company is not out any money . . . they are out time. Many shoppers spent quite a bit of their own money which they will now never recover. I have been in this business a very long time now (over a decade) and I would not feel right about accepting payment for MY time if the shoppers I scheduled were NOT being reimbursed.

For the shoppers that are out a significant amount of money, this is NOT petty. This is the profit that some shoppers will MAKE in an entire month.

Hi there,

I just wanted to say that while I really have no dog in this hunt, I have never shopped for either Freeman or Private Eyes, I have just had the chance to read this thread (I hadn't since it didn't pertain to me), but that I agree very much so with Busy, Lisa, Steve, AustinMom, etc. Having gone back and read the thread, I see the following:

Private Eyes is very upset that people haven't respected the time they have taken to try to "mediate" the issue with Freeman.

- To this I say, I would imagine if I were in the same position, I would be somewhat appreciative, though, it would appear that Private Eyes had an obligation (if not contractually, morally?) to do so for the people who trusted them when Private Eyes helped to schedule for Freeman and thus put them in bed with the devil, as it were? [Before that gets blown out proportion, I'm using a euphemism, I am not calling Freeman or Private Eyes the devil =P]

IMO, to expect shoppers (most of whom had(/have?) still not been paid) to applaud the situation is unrealistic. One shopper said it best when they said that as shoppers, we are not banks. We taken on the entirety of the fiduciary responsibility (whether it is $1.25 at the cash register or $300 for a luxury stay). The mom of five doing this after being laid off can barely afford the $1.25 when it comes to feeding her children, and for those of us whom are lucky, we cannot afford to carry a $300 expense for months on end.

Private Eyes has, in several posts, asked shoppers to check their facts. I'm all about fact checking and what I find is this in reply to dwater's initial post about Private Eyes being fully paid-- this is from Private Eye's response on Volition (that Private Eyes was very upset that dwater hadn't initially seen and had asked that dwater not respond to -both- forums when they'd already responded on the other):

- Posted - 07/23/2012 : 5:55:47 PM

Sorry, Jeff. I missed that question.
I was paid as agreed as of a couple of months back, however, all we have been able to do since May (since there were not yet any shops to schedule) was work on helping with the payment communication. In other words, we are not owed anything (that I could really charge them for at least). They will owe us for scheduling a few shops in July before I left them, but I will not be able to expect that for another month or two.

Reading the response, wouldn't it be safe to say that Private Eyes _was_ paid (except for a few shops you scheduled in July)?

Now, this is prior to what Private Eyes posted here, stating:

What I did say was, "We cannot yet know if we too will fall victim to The Freeman Group's non or late payment tactics, as we have only one small, left-over invoice that is not yet due."

Private Eyes did acknowledge the post on 7/23, but I really fail to see how that is different from what dwater posted. All except for a bill in July was paid for, therefore, I don't see how dwater can be accused of assuming anything.

Finally, I have to say that when I saw this--

"Nevertheless, taking into consideration what's been mention on this forum thus far, and the fact that our assistance seemed to offer little appreciation or relief to the ones that have posted here, we saw more reason to back out, then to stay in."

--a quote taken directly from a Private Eyes post here (on the first page) on this thread, I knew that this would be a company I would never shop for.

I'm one of those people, whether someone is breaking their arm to pat me on the back, or just simply ignoring how super awesome I've been (tongue-in-cheek), will continue to help in a situation I feel that I have some influence over because...well, because I think it's the decent thing to do.

I have not agreed with a lot of what PE posted in relationship to this mess, but this just really smacks of "I'm taking my toys and going home." Just because shoppers haven't perhaps shown the relevant level of appreciate that PE expected, they will cut bait and remove themselves from the collective bargaining table, despite whatever responsibility they might have had there in the first place.

Not on, IMO. Not on.

I want to say that I am not writing this to extend the argument, but having just read the thread I felt like a little moral support for the shoppers who are in this mess was in order. I also didn't like how many times the term "assumption" was bandied about when it didn't seem like assumptions were being made on the part of the shopper, but more like the sounds of a very large, very loud truck backing up-- beep, beep, beep...

I owed Lyssa an apology. It was not her nor her company that was so mistrustful without reason. I have offered her an apology and she accepted it. The incident happened just as I said it did, but with another scheduling company. My newbie mistake and I'll try to be more careful.
Charlene