|
i would have no problem using NATS.
it's total bullshit the way people claim that their first post about xclusive cash claimed shaving. have we really gotten so stupid that when a person states cold, dry facts that we interpret them so as to suit our own needs for drama? the guy simply stated what happened - which, if correct, isn't actually open to interpretation. he didn't claim the program shaved - he said there was a stats anomaly they were contractually obligated to help him solve.
if you want to say "that means they're shaving", that is YOUR conclusion of the fact there was a reporting issue, not his. if there was a possible reporting issue, that is ALL that that means.
you know, there have been issues like this in our industry where the program WASN'T shaving - so having such an issue does not mean you shave and posting such an issue doesn't mean an accusation of shaving.
__________________
Got Gay and For Women Traffic?
|