So yes, I do admit it – it’s evident in every post and comment and readers following the thread should reasonably be able to discern the difference
“No one”, please get a clue before you speak.. The person hitting your link does not sign up to anything and they do not get billed extra, the commission is paid directly from the company. You couldn’t be a better example of exactly what I was referring to when I said these reviews were filled with half truths and false facts and inuendos..
I have lots of friends, and they would be perfectly happy to click my portal before they get to the final destination, at no cost to them.
Juggy, Apparently, reading comprehension is not your forte either. I never claimed this was a favorable, or even an in-depth pros/cons review of STE. Since you’ve been trolling both Everyday Finance and this blog for the articles and comments, it should be evident by now that when I did present a full review in 2008 (which you must admit, did include both positive and negative aspects since you had read it), then, I was threatened with by various means and I eventually removed the whole review. The point of this post was simply to do an update on what’s changed in 2009 and to move the conversation from EverydayFinance which is my legacy blog, over to this one. That’s it. Perhaps if your legal counsel had acted in a more professional and reasonable manner, I would be more inclined to include whatever favorable aspects of the program you claim prospective members can realize at this point. However, given the ludicrous treatment I endured and the subsequent firestorm he ignited on the internet by his actions from free speech advocates to other legal experts, while I’m not looking to invite another round of legal threats, I’m also not doing STE any favors.
The reader gets half the picture, but only the half you want them to see
Regarding Sarbox/SOX, the fact that you’d never heard of Sarbox while claiming to be a Financial Analyst is much more shocking than what you describe as perhaps an antiquated or out of use abbreviation (for such a recent development). All I can say is I work with Financial Analysts and our Tax Counsel on a pretty routine basis and they use the term “Sarbox”. My MBA professors used the term “Sarbox”. News/Financial outlets routinely use “Sarbox”. Here’s Forbes using “Sarbox”, NOT “Sox” just last week http://www.hookupdate.net/pl/lavalife-recenzja – are they clueless too? Along with Investor’s Business Daily? Wikipedia lists “Sarbox” as a common abbreviation (note: ahead of “SOX”). So I think your point is…well, pointless.
Again, your desperation to resort to insults relfects your desire to move away from the obvious, which is that your review’s only intention was to harm STE’s reputation by putting up a review with barely any research.. I did read your full review and although it had about ONE pro listed (maybe one?), they were immediately dimissed and the cons that you listed were mostly half truths and flat out lies, which I assume was the reason you were threatened with legal action in which you complied. I remember a friend cutting and pasting your review in an email and I had to dispell each falsehood with real facts. I remember it vividly because your review was the reason I steered clear of STE, until I did my friend a favor and actually did my own research, only to discover all the half truths..
It doesn’t surprise me that your articles are written in this manner.. Most internet authors or bloggers are skillful in the art of PARSING. Like a politician, you parse the words that benfit your cause, and leave out the whole picture so a fair view is not possible. Example?