welcome to GFY

Exactly:thumbsup

I agree, and that was my vote as well since I have no experience with Flynt or Cash Quest and couldn't care less about his signature.... but it's still beside the point. The point was whether or not Sleazy could find someone else that FELT they were ripped.... he did.

"Ripped off" doesnt mean bummed out about not having another mans sig.

Id say people with "Voted #1 by webmasters" on their banners should be questioned as well, those walk by without disturbance.

In addition: people make claims on banners such as:

"My traffic has doubled since I started using your program."

The banner is blinking above this forum now.

Most of the banners they fly here are bullshit.

No one mentions these banners but choose CashQuest?

I dont get it.

Moral of the story, arguing gives Ken a stiffy and no one ever wins ;) Believe me...

Ken, actually making bets with sleazy?? Sleazy just rose a few notches in my opinion, though he's still below scum.

Amp - Once again....you're twisting my words. My exact words were

"How about this.....you find one person who we have EVER ripped off in the 5 years we've been in business....and I'll give YOU $5,000."

I didn't say anything about people who "felt" they were ripped off.

A sponsor shaving IS ripping someone off - black and white

A sponsor not paying someone for good traffic IS ripping someone off - black and white.

A company not paying for services rendered IS ripping someone off - black and white.

We've never done any of the above.....

Someone "feeling" they were ripped of is completely subjective and is NOT a fact just because they feel that way.

Shit....there are millions of people who "feel" that they are owed something or that they have been wronged by the world and that's why their lives are fucked.

Just because they feel that way.....does it make it so?

SleazyDream - The check will be Fedexed tomorrow to the address you posted. It will come from WebQuest, Inc. Should I put it attention to anyone?

RRRED Moral of the story, arguing gives Ken a stiffy and no one ever wins ;) Believe me...


LOL....that only happens when I argue with you :) ......and we both know....that you ALWAYS win in the long run!

Fletch XXX - Good point!

Toonlogos - I don't know....by the looks of the poll, it still seems that everyone (including SleazyDream) still knows that he's a couple cards short of a full deck :)

If the 5k was supposed to go to SleazyDream directly, I would have probably called bullshit out of principle alone as I still think it's a total crock of shit.

But since he was generous enough to say it would go to charity....I figure it doesn't really matter in the end.

With all the money made in this industry....it's never a bad thing to find an excuse to give some to a good cause.

then that's my bad on that..... I haven't followed this since the beginning of it, just been skimming the cliff notes off & on.... and I thought I caught the general drift of things being that because of the whole "perceived value" of the signature thing to basically be about whether or not some webmasters felt they got screwed.....

so, I didn't intentionally twist your words, just misunderstood, and I apologize for that Ken. And if that's the case, then there really is no way to settle this. It's a catch 22. Sleazy is talking about webmasters that feel they were ripped because of perceived value, and you're talking about webmasters that you have EVER ripped off. Well, I suppose one could argue that if a webmaster feels he was ripped off, then in his mind, he was.... no? So how do you determine who is right and who is wrong...

you can't.

You'll say you didn't, (and I would agree with you...) and the webmaster that feels ripped will say he was. But there's no way to carve in stone one way or the other with this whole *perceived value* thing.

I don't remember seeing the ad in question, but I think if you hyped & pumped up webmasters by promising a check "Signed by Larry Flynt!" and then delivered a check with a freakin' stamp on it..... that's misleading. We both know it. I'm sure alot of webmasters were probably under the impression that he was going to actually sign them. I would have. If that's what the marketing was... "Signed by Larry Flynt!".... definately I would have. And it's real easy to say later, "well of course he's not going to sign 1,000's of checks by hand"....

I don't know if I'd necessarily call that ripping off webmasters, but it's certainly misleading.

I comment on ANY thread the peeks my interest. I rarly look at banners so I don't comment on what I don't look at.

Obviously there must be SOME sort of value in Larry's signature.... be it collector value or whatever.... or you wouldn't have marketed it as "Signed by Larry Flynt!" in the first place.... so saying that a digital stamp is just as good, while correct in terms of cashing the check at a bank, obviously has a completely different meaning than what was projected.... or you would have marketed it as "Digitally stamped enmasse with Larry Flynt's signature!"....

but that probably wouldn't have drawn as many webmasters....

Riverdale is a small office - 3 employees in the office (the rest work in the homes with the clients) - if you send it to that address they will get it. :)


it often takes a few days for stuff to get here from the USA - so if you send it on monday it sould be here before the end of the week. I suppose I need to go buy some ketchup for my hat...........

"Sell internet eraser WIN A NEW CAR!"

"We get webmasters laid"

<img src=http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/images/sextraffic_banner_31.gif border="1">

"My traffic doubled since I started using your program"

<img src=http://board.gofuckyourself.com/images/wrn01.gif border="1">

Again, if we're gonna argue about banner tactics, dont single out one.

Every banner that comes through here has some bullshit about it.

I don't see how this is relevant at all. We're not discussing these other banners, we're discussing the Larry Flynt signature issue here. Perhaps you should start a new topic.

Perhaps not.

Its very relevant.

Youre arguing about trickery and banner tactics while banners are blinking above this argument doing even more trickery.

Besides,... im soooo upset.

The topbucks banner tricked me.

It says 55$ sign ups "each week of Oct" yet it only covers certain days of the week.

This has everything to do with the argment.

my understanding was that Lensman DID give away 10 cars?

I did comment on the we get webmasters laid thread.

Never noticed the third banner before - looks like bullshit

The statement - I have no idea where it comes from?

the forth banner - once again I don't take notice of banners.



I play favorites with noone, unlike you - it's why people love me soo much. I just call the shot like I see em.

Woah, I never said he didnt.

But just because I make IE sales doesnt mean I win a car.

But one used the car to get affiliates.
I consider it all marketing and accept it as such... and move on... heheh

:winkwink:

"You'll say you didn't, (and I would agree with you...) and the webmaster that feels ripped will say he was. But there's no way to carve in stone one way or the other with this whole *perceived value* thing."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Amp,

I agree and that's why I decided to give the 5k to charity either way. How someone feels is not black and white and I'm open to the fact that someone might have "felt" ripped off. I think it's nuts, but people who see things differently is what makes the world go around....

I don't mind people not agreeing with me.....I just don't like to be called dishonest.....which is how this whole thing started to begin with.

I stated this earlier and I'll say it again. The reason we say "Larry Flynt" signs these checks is for the novelty of it. Normal checks being sent out from LFP would not have Larry's signiture (digital or otherwise). They would have the sig of the CFO or President.

Technology allowed us to put Larry's sig on every check....which we think is pretty cool!

If it would make everyone feel better....we can have Bob Jones in accounting sign them and then this will all be a mute point :)

Okay, well.... since you find it relevant to the discussion, let's address them.
I believe Lens did in fact give away cars.

How can this be disproven? Perhaps they actually DID get some webmasters laid.

also, how can this be disproved? First you would have to know who was being quoted, then you would have to analyze their stats to accurately determine whether or not their traffic doubled.

These arguments do not compare. They cannot be disproven.

I think the sex traffic banner saying "We'll Make you Rich" can definilty be disproven. That implies that they WILL make you rich.

Is everyone using Sex Traffic become rich from it? I think we all know the answer to that.....

I agree with the "We'll make you rich" part.... but the rest don't stand up. "MY traffic doubled...." doesn't say yours will.....

Shit...this sucks. We're all starting to agree on things now :)

I'd agree that the sex traffic banner IS False marketing. Probally why noone of any significance uses them.......

it's also probally why some people felt 'ripped off' on the 'Larry Flynt signs the check' promotion - cause you set a high standard and they expected it to be his signature on the checks based on their experience with you. They didn't really expect it to be a joke.

reason this is of interest to me is because I did commercial spot production for radio for a while.... got some hard lessons along the way as to what kind of wording can be gotten away with and what can't.... (not that anyone enforces it in this industry, but still.... ) :winkwink:

Okay so they get webmasters laid.

Hooray.

Dispute "we get webmasters laid" but agree about "we will make you rich" - either way the banner tricks. But go ahead and do your thing.

I was simply addressing "banner trickery" which is basically what this is about.

You can claim its about Larry Flynt "signing checks," but its really about banner tricks.

Its all just marketing. And I see through the bullshit daily.

and you don't think there's any difference whatsoever in some offshoot company claiming to get webmasters laid, and the company that runs Hustler claiming that checks will be signed by Mr. Flynt?

if Playboy said that they were giving out something (anything.... checks, frisbees, condoms, whatever) signed by Hefner.... I would expect that they'd be signed by Hefner. Not the guy in the mailroom with a rubber stamp.

You yourself said you didnt know who Larry Flynt was until recently so the value of his reputation, along side the non existence or familiarity of this "offshoot company" is about the same.

I dont know who they are, obviously big enough to advertise here. Regardless, I was speaking sarcastically regarding banner trickery. Nothing more, nothing less.

So if one places merit on the banner alone, its trickery despite ones reputation or good name.

exactly

that's completely irrelevant Fletch.... if you don't notice either banner, then none of it means anything... but the people that it DID mean something to knew the difference. If I didn't know who Elvis was, his signature wouldn't mean much to me either. That's the exception..... not the rule.

As I stated on page 1 of this lovely thread,

"I took it as assurance, not trickery."

So I really have no argument other than that.

i hear in england, nitpicker is an actual profession.

So how can you prove Larry Flynt actually did not sign a couple of those checks? The ad never said Larry Flynt signs 'ALL those checks'. In the same way not all webmasters got a car or got laid or rich.

Ken even arguing over this is ridiculous. And sleazy lost the poll he agreed upon, its a wonder Ken is actually sending a check.

I have nothing against giving money to charity, but giving money to a charity recommended by someone self-admittedly insane and a liar and scumbag to add to it is more than insane!

How do you figure Sleazy lost the poll? Ken said to find ONE... looks like more than one to me.

Damn....you guys like to argue as much as I do! :)

Amp - Once again....I said to find one person that we ever ACTUALLY ripped off....not one person who "felt" ripped off based on some perceived value!

We didn't claim that there was any perceived value.....that was an assumption made by a few people who were then disappointed when they assumed wrong. It would be different if we had made some claim that the checks could be collectors items, etc.

When I offered up the idea of the poll to settle the dispute, I didn't say that if SleazyDream got 1 vote in his favor that he won. I assumed that whoever had the majority votes would be the winner. I think that was a fair assumption and I think that's what most people thought.

Doesn't really matter....everyone has their opinion and I'm cool with that....but it's clear that most people did not assume that they were going to actually get a check with Larry's original signiture on it so I think I made my point.

As far as I'm concerned...I CLEARLY won the bet. I'm only sending the check to the charity because I said I would and because it's something we like to do anyway....

I'm not disputing that anymore Ken.... because I agree with you now.... BUT.... YOU started the poll, not me. And according to the results of the poll, I'd hardly say that Sleazy lost the poll. If you didn't want to lose the poll, maybe you should have worded it more precisely.... arguing with me at this point is moot.... you're arguing against your own results now. :glugglug