Just to clarify they were not asked to move away because of shaving or what not. I have no reason to believe they would ever steal sales.

They were not happy with the solution. They were told they should check out other software products and we would do whatever they needed in order to help them make a smooth transition. Not every solution is good for everyone.

Again, I'm not going to comment/argue/bicker/fight over this on the boards. The silly board drama can be left to those who make their living off of it. If you have questions you're more than welcome to contact us but we will not be here to try to entertain the masses.

I've had the same experience with NATS and have held off promoting anything else that uses it for this reason.

Nothing like a little bit of drama to get things going in the morning.

maybe they were caught shaving and NATS asked them to stop using their software ?

Not even remotely close... sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists that a sponsor was shaving but that's just not what happened. I believe that John points that out as well in one of his posts.

The allegations in this thread are entertaining at best.

Shut your fucking pie holes if all you have is speculation. :2 cents:

And for the record...This was NOT directed at either of the 2 companies involved.

Now it is starting to get clear.... Good call there.

NATS may well be a great backend program, but people will have to realize that it's not goign to fit into every company's technical needs or organizational structures.. Using NATS doesn't make a program good or bad.. it makes it their choice. I don't see why people are so quick to condemn people who don't choose NATS or MPA2 or whatever.. it's almost like a fad, people are gung ho about one backend for a while and then it's on to the next one. No software is perfect or infallible, and considering that NATS is new, maybe there's technical aspects involved in it's implimentation that have caused problems for J&A. Who knows? The offer of an explaination is there, I wish people around here would find out facts before they start assuming.

I will say it one more time here and now. This was not out to harm anyone, but when another man (John Albright, owner of NATS to my knowledge) calls our Company or any of its employees liars, I am forced to defend all. I speak the truth. We run a solid business built on firm ground, and I will have words (or initiate immediate legal action) with anyone the makes such defamatory claims saying otherwise.

If anyone thinks NATS is UNSHAVEABLE then you need to see this. Here is a screencap of what NATS reports I should pay my affiliates for all rebills (recurring charges) for ELECTRACASH (one of our check processors)

5 total rebills.

http://www.jasonandalex.com/images/nats/nats01.jpg

Here is what ELECTRACASH says I should pay.

275 total rebills.

http://www.jasonandalex.com/images/nats/nats02.jpg

270 missing rebills because of NATS. FACT.

Do you know how long it takes to even find that problem, and THEN cut separate checks for the affiliates to make sure you do the right thing and they get paid for their hard work? This is one of the many problems we had with NATS and one of the many reasons we moved far away from it.

Now, you can expect John or one of his tech guys to jump on this board and give you all a line (or explanation depending on how you decide to view it) about how this is some security loophole, and it has to do with it being ELECTRACASH's fault, and so on. It always seemed to be someone else's fault when it came to the blame being pointed at NATS (and I have further proof of this as well). The only reason we went with Nats was because of the NO SHAVE feature.

This is just the beginning?

50

See Sig!

wow.....

hmm :glugglug

Alex and I will be in Phoenix. Anyone that would like to talk with us, call to set up some time. We will do our best :)

Chris
858-587-9000 (102)