Beehivemail Stole my money [Archive] - GPTBoycott Discussion Forum

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 03:00

Jaydilla, although I understand your principle I can only state TOS are not worth the paper they are printed on. Program Owners or webmasters or whatever glorified title you would care to give them all have the notion that they are GODs or the A typical spoiled kid that its "my ball and you play by my rules or I will go home,hold my breath till I turn blue or I will let you play till it time to pay and then you get the shaft" in this case. Beehive owner/wm/PO is like the rest, she sounds like an ET of Clixbuxx fame which is another wm/po/GOD that needs to be put out of business. There is no control over much of anything on the internet so whiners like her and ET will multiply and villify till everyone gets a heavy dose of common sense and doesn't sign up for programs. JMO

I agree and thanks for expressing your opinion on the matter, maybe she will wake up.

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 03:06

Why would you click the I Cheat thing to start with?
Why not? Right now as i write this response there are 20 websites that advertise with google for the term " i cheat " so why wouldnt they advertise at beehive for that same term. Now this is just for google i havent checked overture which is owned by yahoo, im sure there are sites advertising with them as well for that term.

freecashspace

19th May 2005, 06:47

Why not? Right now as i write this response there are 20 websites that advertise with google for the term " i cheat " so why wouldnt they advertise at beehive for that same term. Now this is just for google i havent checked overture which is owned by yahoo, im sure there are sites advertising with them as well for that term.
Out of curiosity, did you also select any of the other 'silly interests', like 'Delete me', 'Donate All Earned Money to Us', and 'Dont Speak English'?

Cheers,

Wil

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 06:59

Out of curiosity, did you also select any of the other 'silly interests', like 'Delete me', 'Donate All Earned Money to Us', and 'Dont Speak English'?

Cheers,

Wil

Beehivemail was my very first PTR site i ever joined, and i dont remember if i checked them all or not but without any guidance from the webmaster by putting in her terms page not to check the boxes people that are just starting out dont know any better. And im not really mad cause she deleted my account. what pissed me off is she waited 3 weeks til i hit payout to do it.

bluedog

19th May 2005, 13:55

Beehivemail was my very first PTR site i ever joined, and i dont remember if i checked them all or not but without any guidance from the webmaster by putting in her terms page not to check the boxes people that are just starting out dont know any better. And im not really mad cause she deleted my account. what pissed me off is she waited 3 weeks til i hit payout to do it.

I'm just starting out, just joined last week, but I knew better than to click on any silly interests. Then again, I actually looked at what I was clicking, I didn't just click on every little box in hope of getting more $$$.

LouCypher

19th May 2005, 14:16

Well my point is beehivemail.com doesnt have it anywhere on their website about checking the i cheat box that your account would be suspended and secondly that she would steal the money back from you that you earned.Are you daft?

Besides your obvious lack of common sense when presented with such a conundrum, she has repeatedly warned her members to "check your interests" in emails. Those "traps" are put there to detect non-English speakers and individuals using cheat bots or autosurf programs.

If you had enough foresight not to also check "Delete Me" "Donate All Money To Us" or "Don't Speak English" the why would you check "I Cheat" while obviously disregarding the intent of those links and ignoring the messages she places in her emails? You are reading your email, right?

I can't believe you even posted this thread. You quite possibly could have contacted Cheryl and had the matter resolved. Instead you come on a public forum disparaging a reputable webmistress of an excellent program. Whatever possibility you had of getting that $1 just flew out the window, pal. Believe me when I say she is fair and honest and doesn't cheat her members, or steal their money, as I have been paid several times hope to continue earning with her.

Even worse is your statement "she waited 3 weeks to do it." Sounds like she gave you three weeks of opportunity to correct what possibly could have been a mistake instead of the asinine actions of a questionably intelligent member.

If there was a box for "I Have Sex With Animals" would you check it because there are lots of beastiality websites that might want to send you ads?

Reallybarb

19th May 2005, 15:20

Yawn, this happened in March you have posted over and over and over about it, you know you are looking more like a stalker then a member who goofed up, why don't you give it a rest already?

dcwike

19th May 2005, 15:37

Woo Hoo For Loucypher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beehivemail Is The Best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 15:43

Yawn, this happened in March you have posted over and over and over about it, you know you are looking more like a stalker then a member who goofed up, why don't you give it a rest already?

For 1 when you sign up at a PTR the webmaster and u enter into a legal contract via their terms, it is unlawful for a webmaster to invoke a new contract without the members consent. so 1 she doesnt mention anything about the interests boxes in her terms. But she mentions click your interests in the boxes.
It's simple law she can't alter the agreement you both enter into she is bound by it. and if she sends out these emails warning about the interests box...prove it with 2 recurring emails about the warnings. frwd them to me with the dates. How often does she send them? once a month what? Cause I only had a account for 3 weeks and i dont recall a email about the interests. And even if she does send them they cant change the agreement the webmaster is bound by via her terms att signup .anyone have 2 that r back to back so you can prove these emails even exist. And let me reiterate, if its not in a websites terms/agreement any other actions taken by a webmaster/member is illegal and makes the person in this case civily liable for damages. The law you people do know what that is. But wait a low end website like beehive.com shows exactly why PTR sites have the reputation they do. Keep up the good work. And also this is what this forums for.....people to talk praise, complain about PTR sites. You dont like me posting about a website that screwed me over than maybe try another forum, because anytime that nit wit of a webmaster tries to explain her ILLEGAL behavior ill be there to put her back in the hole she came from.

Heaven forbid if a PTR site like beehivemail.com tried to have standards like the more reputable advertisng website (Google Adwords) or (Yaohoo's overture). See those websites clearly clearly define the terms of their agreements. They dont change their terms 1. without a notification to all users and 2. it being permately posted into their TOS on their website. Now if you wanna run with you should have known excuse. Heres a little thought that just ran through me. If she does not tell you in the terms what boxes should not be checked, could she suspend a account for someone clicking searches. Why not? Doesnt say it about i cheat, or searches. So couldnt she do it for actually any box u checked if she want to. You gys talk out your azzes. Common sense, yeah i admit i was naive to check the box. I learned my lesson with this site. But what really just irritates me is she waited til she had to pay me to, delete me account. Another poor decision by this webmaster. I'm sure after im done with her she will have some additions to her terms.

AnI4AnI

19th May 2005, 15:56

If you had enough foresight not to also check "Delete Me" "Donate All Money To Us" or "Don't Speak English" the why would you check "I Cheat" while obviously disregarding the intent of those links and ignoring the messages she places in her emails?

Excellent point! :)

AnI4AnI

19th May 2005, 16:00

You dont like me posting about a website that screwed me over than maybe try another forum, because anytime that nit wit of a webmaster tries to explain her ILLEGAL behavior ill be there to put her back in the hole she came from.

Her "illegal behavior"???? :laugh:

And what harsh words...sounds to me like you're the only cave-dweller here.

Reallybarb

19th May 2005, 16:02

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 16:05

Her "illegal behavior"???? :laugh:

And what harsh words...sounds to me like you're the only cave-dweller here.

Love it when the opositions points are crushed so bad they resort to calling you names. GOT TO LOVE IT. GO HOME TEAM. Every post you guys make you sink farther away from the wholepoint of the posts. Cavedweller....I love it!

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 16:14

Apparently you didn't read the TOS before you signed up and you must not have been reading them since, almost every single program states something similar to this,

beehivemail.com may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members.

Also it clearly states

Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action.

It's no ones fault but your own and posting over and over about it isn't going to change the fact that you messed up.

Well she may have tht in her terms but that part is not legally binding. For one. She has to post her new terms on her website when she changes them. Why? Duh cause if she does not post her new terms, People that just signed up wont know them. Talk about common sense. She can't invoke a change of terms with out 1. A notification to all members, and 2. the news terms permately affixed to the website. What kinda rocket scientist wrote those terms for her. Any of you own websites? There are legal and ethical standards a webmaster has to abide by. Especially if the website is a revenue generating site. So what your saying is if she wakes up in the middle of the night and says to herself you know i think my new rules is anyone who registers a user name beginning with J will be deleted. And she doesnt need to put that new term on her terms site. Even if she sent a mass email to all her members telling them about her new term, it isnt legally binding til it is affixed to the website. My point exactly here is she send it to everyone about the new terms if she doesnt put it on the site HOW DOO THE NEW SIGNUPS KNOW OF THIS TERM AND SOME PEOPLE MAKE A USERNAME WITH THE LETTER J. That part of her terms can not be even recognized at face value.

Reallybarb

19th May 2005, 16:25

Spin all you want, you goofed, get over it or not I'm not wasting my time anymore then I already have. I hope you have better luck next time and at least you learned, I hope, to read before you click.

dcwike

19th May 2005, 17:19

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder. There's a guy I know that no bank will allow to have an account with them.

You see, he wrote bad checks all the time.

I wonder if he can sue the banks to get his "bad check" fees back, or, better yet, sue them for discrimination against bad check writers!!! :laugh:

You know, this is soooooooooooooooooo frivilous it's hillarious!!!!!!!!!!!

I can see this going before a judge.

"Your Honor, I demand my dollar! We have a contract that obligates Beehive to pay me for reading emails."

(The judge looks to the webmistress of Beehive)

"Your Honor," the webmistress says, "When a person joins my site, they must check their "catagory of interests." For ovious reasons, I have placed certain interests that help me keep cheaters from draining my profits." ( She hands the Balief the document listing the interests.) And, she adds the statement, "Your Honor, the Plaintiff checked the 'I Cheat" box."

(The judge looks over at the plaintiff for her response.)

The plaintiff says, "Yes, I checked the 'I Cheat" box, but, she waited until I reached payout to delete my account!"

(I can just see the judge laughing so hard he gets tears in his eyes.)

But, in all reality, we, as readers, are legally responsible for the interests we check. And, by golly, I ask you, "Who in their right mind would be held liable to pay a member who has the "I cheat" box checked?"

Now, honestly, had you gone to Cheryl and not here, and told her you didn't realize you had that box checked, and explained that you've only been a member 3 weeks, she would have researched the last time she sent the "warning" email out. And, if, indeed there were no warning emails sent within that period, she would have paid you and told you to be more careful in the future.

You're making a mountain out of a mohill, here.

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 18:43

OK here is the end of this convo. You guys make cracks and snide remarks about a obvious flaw in beehivemail.com terms. I did a little research because i knew i was right. Under the `Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act''.

It clearly states the requirement of a website.
which i will past and underline what she is lacking and what her obvious supports are ignorant to.
TITLE I--ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES IN COMMERCE

SEC. 101. GENERAL RULE OF VALIDITY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other
rule of law (other than this title and title II), with respect to any
transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce--
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such
transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or
enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied
legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an
electronic signature or electronic record was used in its
formation.
(b) Preservation of Rights and Obligations.--This title does not--
(1) limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed
by a statute, regulation, or rule of law relating to the rights and
obligations of persons under such statute, regulation,[B] or rule of
law other than a requirement that contracts or other records be
written, signed, or in nonelectronic form; or
(2) require any person to agree to use or accept electronic
records or electronic signatures, other than a governmental agency
with respect to a record other than a contract to which it is a
party.
(c) [U]Consumer Disclosures.--
(1) Consent to electronic records.--Notwithstanding subsection
(a), if a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires that
information relating to a transaction or transactions in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce be provided or made
available to a consumer in writing, the use of an electronic record
to provide or make available (whichever is required) such
information satisfies the requirement that such information be in
writing if--
(A) the consumer has affirmatively consented to such use
and has not withdrawn such consent;
(B) the consumer, prior to consenting, is provided with a
clear and conspicuous statement--
(i) informing the consumer of (I) any right or option
of the consumer to have the record provided or made
available on paper or in nonelectronic form, and (II) the
right of the consumer to withdraw the consent to have the
record provided or made available in an electronic form and
of any conditions, consequences (which may include
termination of the parties' relationship), or fees in the
event of such withdrawal;
(ii) informing the consumer of whether the consent
applies (I) only to the particular transaction which gave
rise to the obligation to provide the record, or (II) to
identified categories of records that may be provided or
made available during the course of the parties'
relationship;
(iii) describing the procedures the consumer must use
to withdraw consent as provided in clause (i) and to update
information needed to contact the consumer electronically;
and
(iv) informing the consumer (I) how, after the consent,
the consumer may, upon request, obtain a paper copy of an
electronic record, and (II) whether any fee will be charged
for such copy;
(C) the consumer--
(i) prior to consenting, is provided with a statement
of the hardware and software requirements for access to and
retention of the electronic records; and
(ii) consents electronically, or confirms his or her
consent electronically, in a manner that reasonably
demonstrates that the consumer can access information in
the electronic form that will be used to provide the
information that is the subject of the consent; and
(D) after the consent of a consumer in accordance with
subparagraph

LouCypher

19th May 2005, 18:49

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 18:52

Well there u go the exact federal law that she is required to follow. She is in obvious violation of. oh and the website to read the law is
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f%3As761enr.txt.pdf#search='Electronic%20Sig natures%20in%20Global%20and%20National%20Commerce% 20Act'

Ok so now all you just shut it. It clearly states she has to have
(A) the consumer has affirmatively consented to such use
and has not withdrawn such consent;
(B) the consumer, prior to consenting, is provided with a
clear and conspicuous statement--
CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS STATEMENT. So after all your huffing and puffing you all are wrong. Even having i cheat mixed in with the other interests does not fall under these subtitle, 1 because they do not fall under the terms of conspicuous and secondly it isnt on her terms page. So it doesnt matter if someone checks i cheat or not without a clear and conspicuous statement in her terms as to what would happen she broke the legal contract. So it doesnt matter if its common sense to you, it might not be to someone else. thats why she is reuired by federl law to have those terms. Now all you guys go try and pick apart someones elses valid point. like i said before BEEHIVEMAIL.COM STOLE MY MONEY.

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 19:11

jaydilla, to save yourself from future embarassment, don't join these programs:

BusyBeeMail: "I Cheat" + "Me Speak No English" + "Delete Me"
Classical-Mail: "Clicking without reading" + "Terminate My Membership"
PolarPTR: "Don't send me email" + "Unknown language to me"
SoRedTheRose: "I Cheat" + "I use autoclick software" + "I do not understand english"

I wouldn't want you to lose another $1 from these WMs trying to "steal" your hard earned money.
:laugh:

my point is even backed by fedral law, i quoted the law to you, the source for the law. I can't wait to see your guys new distort absord view on her website, her obvious ignorance on even the basics of owning a website. If i had money to throw away i would shut her site down. And i also filed a fraud complaint on here site at the internet fraud complaint center www1.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp

Maybe she can get her website into compliance or be forced to comply by fraud taskforce. But as obvious as her ignorance to commerce and the internet is i bet she will still be to dumb to update her terms.

LouCypher

19th May 2005, 19:39

my point is even backed by fedral law, i quoted the law to you, the source for the law. I can't wait to see your guys new distort absord view on her website, her obvious ignorance on even the basics of owning a website. If i had money to throw away i would shut her site down. And i also filed a fraud complaint on here site at the internet fraud complaint center www1.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp

Maybe she can get her website into compliance or be forced to comply by fraud taskforce. But as obvious as her ignorance to commerce and the internet is i bet she will still be to dumb to update her terms.You've given me the best laugh I've had all day.

Good luck with your crusade. I hope when filing your complaint you ran a spellchecker before hitting "Submit" lest the FBI come to the same opinion about your mental state.

AnI4AnI

19th May 2005, 19:50

jaydilla

19th May 2005, 20:27

You must have left out the part where it requires site owners to crawl inside your head and think for you....as someone mentioned earlier, if you understood the purpose of the other categories like "Don't Understand English" then you are perfectly capable of understanding what "I Cheat" means. THis is not unlike the sane person trying to cop a plea of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.....how convenient.

See what i mean by a distorted and just absord reply. Listen if The webmaster of a website has a cheat box that will alter the relationship of the contract with the member and the webmaster she is reuired by law to post that in her terms otherwise the second she deletes the account she has broken the contract she was bound to. It is a protection for consumers and webmasters too. And if you put as much thought into what she would have to do as you do with defending her illegal acts, you would realize, she does not have to address every stupid issue in her terms. She only has to address the issues that directly affect the contract i.e. cheat box, dont speak english...etc, cheat links in emails. She has most of the issues addressed in her terms, Im just trying to educate you people on websites, the law pertaining to internet commerce and the legal requirements of a webmaster. People just sit back and let the webmasters walk all over them just because they are a member and think they have to take the webmasters crap lying down. I don't. When I'm right and I know I'm right I'll let that webmaster know. And as you can see every posts i made about beehivemail was true. You cant deny the facts, 1 she isnt in compliance with federal governing internet commerce, which has resulted in this big ol debate. If she would have researched the law pertaining to internet commerce she wouldn't be having these problems. I found the law and read through it in 2 hours. How long has she had this site. Not only that she put a non binding terms. A quote from her terms

" beehivemail.com may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members. Members will be informed of any and all changes to this policy via an email to their primary contact email address provided upon signing up with beehivemail.com. " Now how dumb is that. How are new members who sign up going to know about the new terms if they arent on the website! my god talk about common sense. That whole quote a judge would throw away out of that contract because it doesnt comply with GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT not to mention my states Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Let this be a lesson to these fly by night webmasters who throw a website up. Do a little research for christs sakes.

freebiesite

19th May 2005, 21:02

Ouch...this just gets sillier and sillier

fyi...Jaydilla was a member for 9 days...which shows one can earn quickly...he was not a member for 3 weeks...he joined on 3/20/05 and I terminated him on 3/29 when I went thru the "silly interests"..

fyi...he had every single interest checked...every one...which defeats the purpose of buying the ad manager and running targeted ads

fyi....he has made many posts about me...complaints...he has threatened that he "put beehive on gmails spam list" so that no beehivemail members who use "gmail" would get mails...
he has CLAIMED TO BE the "west coast admin" of gmail/google...and threatened me

he is ridiculous

he had "I cheat" ..."delete me" and "no speak english" checked

I would love someone to tell me what dept store has huge signs and videos available listing and detailing each and every method they are using to catch shoplifters??

thanks to all who are arguing with "jaydilla" but I dont think it is worth it JMO....he has this vendetta and it is pretty stupid...I still have copies of his pretending to be the west coast "admin" of gmail....maybe they will just do something..he is not really worth the time tho JMO

oh...for those who are sooooo concerned about the silly interests I did add this to the signup page..."Select categories of interest to you: Be sure to choose carefully and honestly :)"

To me that is plenty enough warning...really more than needed...interestingly enough, I have long noted that most of the ones who choose the silly interests are from countries where english is not their "first" language...in cases where the person is in usa/au/uk etc...they usually are just greedy or in a hurry and choose each and every interest like jay did

also...my own "informal" sampling of members over the past year also showed me that those people who do choose "silly" interests also have a higher proportion of cheat links clicked, a higher proportion of them screw up the ptsups....the non usa members who romp and stomp in my usa freebies/signups sections are also the ones with "silly interests" checked

to me the "silly interests" are a "first line" of defense...they show the person either really does not comprehend simple everyday english *therefore is of NO use to me and my advertisers, sorry...or they do understand english but they are in a huge hurry, dont read carefully, are just doing this by "rote' or maybe even using cheat software

at any rate....take your best shot, I sleep well at nite jaydilla ...hope google will back up your nonsense and allows you to "rep" them ??

jarael

19th May 2005, 23:19

dcwike

19th May 2005, 23:36

Well, I've said my piece - and, yes, even poked fun at the situation.

I'm done, now. Seems Jaydilla just wants attention anyway he can get it. And, as long as we keep posting in this thread, he's going to rant and rave and not listen to a bit of sense about this.

I read a lot of posts here, and, generally, I see legitimate complaints. But, this one's ludicrus.

Get a life, Jadilla. You can post all you want. I just won't read them anymore.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 05:28

It doesnt matter if I checked every box or not. HELLO IDIOTS!! You people are so one sided and obviously close-minded. I clearly have shown you the law, gave you examples of how she is suppose to have her term set up. I can't believe you idiots even have the nerve to try and defend her. I dont give a rats *** if she paid everyone but me. And she also made my point even more clear. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IN YOUR TERMS Informing the consumer of (I) any right or option
of the consumer to have the record provided or made
available on paper or in nonelectronic form, and (II) the
right of the consumer to withdraw the consent to have the
record provided or made available in an electronic form and
of any conditions, consequences (which may include
termination of the parties' relationship).

Talking about I cant speak english. Can you guys read it? When you guys are done hoofing and poofing you can not rebuff this fact of law. She also is required to show "the consumer, prior to consenting, is provided with a
clear and conspicuous statement--"

Her latests post........ "Select categories of interest to you: Be sure to choose carefully and honestly "
To me that is plenty enough warning...really more than needed...interestingly enough,"

Is she dumb how is that a clear and conspicuous statement

I mean get over it people, you might not like it, but you are all wrong. And you all know it. I mean how **** hard is it to write a terms page. Freebie if you have something on your site that can change the relationship of the contractual parties i.e. i cheat box You are required to disclose those in your terms. I mean its simple. My view may not be what you like but it is factually based. I have shown you all the exact law the website to refernce it, quoted the law and you people are so close minded they ignore it. And I love the responses after I nuked your retarded and ill-conceived responses the best come back was to check my spelling. And like I said before it does not matter if she sends out emails about the interest boxes if the new terms are no affixed to her terms page. Come on simpletons. Its all been clearly stated for you, and freebie still tries to defend her retarded practices. Not to mention Legitimate advertising websites Google Adwords and Yahoo's Overture have websites the specifically advertise for the tems " i cheat" . So why would a webmaster put those terms on a interests page about advertisers and than say it was a box to void your earnings and delete your account, better yet even she doesnt disclose it in her terms. Common sense for a webmaster.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 05:44

it is common sense not to click a box that says i cheat lol, and beehivemail are very honest and cheri does pay i have been payed without fail every time. i feel sorry for the webmistriss cheri, she gets a lot of flack and she does her job very very well. if i was an owner of a ptr then i too would delete a member who clicks the i cheat button. regardless of wether it was made clear or not you will b deleted for clicking it, the fact of the matter is you did click it which either means you do cheat, or you dont care or you didnt read what you were clicking? whichever the reason you clicked it for to me sounds like ptr is not for you.

You people read english? I just showed you the law. She's required to disclose her terms. Common sense jesus you people just keep repeating yourselfs and i would love to get a 3rd party opinion posted on this, someone who hasnt had a relationship with me or beehivemail. She cant alter the terms of a contract without disclosing it on her terms i have shown you guys the law. If I was a webmaster I'd be like ok as much as i hate this prick he is right. So a if I was the webmaster of beehivemail.com I would review my terms and fix it, i.e. disclose the point of the i cheat box and the effect of clicking it, since clicking it alters the agreement to your original terms page.
But no whats this webmaster do. heres her quote oh...for those who are sooooo concerned about the silly interests I did add this to the signup page..."Select categories of interest to you: Be sure to choose carefully and honestly "

To me that is plenty enough warning...really more than needed...interestingly enough," Hello dummy!! That doesnt mean anything. When a member signs up they agree to your terms page. You have to make your terms "CLEAR and CONSPICUOUS. Secondly retard, it has to be on your terms page because thats you and the member are contractually obligated to. Did you graduate grade school or what?

bellestraker

20th May 2005, 09:13

[QUOTE=jaydilla]Beehivemail was my very first PTR site i ever joined, and i dont remember if i checked them all or not but without any guidance from the webmaster by putting in her terms page not to check the boxes people that are just starting out dont know any better. And im not really mad cause she deleted my account. what pissed me off is she waited 3 weeks til i hit payout to do it.[/QUOTE

I have been following this for a few days and at first I just thought you were another cocanut..looking for "your fifteen minutes" and then I recalled a group of my sons friends who several years ago when he was about 15 used to play every computer game they could come across.

In any case this group used to each work on different levels and then send the "cheat sheet" to each other and as a team...get to the end of the game and then start on the next one.

No-one was fooled and it was not cheating..It was a team effort..but the sheet was always referred to as a "cheat sheet" so I wondered if this was where you had picked up the idea that "I cheat" was something you could tick and not be just an ******.

Even this "very small " chance of being a reason is lost by your post today where you say that you do not even know if you ticked "delete me" or "donate my earnings".

You say that I cheat may mean something else or be just another category...
In that case...What did you assume that "delete me" meant.??

Or "donate my earnings"

It seems you not only ticked the I cheat but have no idea what the hell you did mark off.

It also seems your excuse for ticking I cheat doesnt hold much weight.
I also did not notice you jumping all over the fact that it wasnt in the tos until someone else mentioned it.

While it may be true that ticking I cheat is not illegal...I doubt it is illegal to accept your earnings as a donation and how do you know that isnt the case.

Maybe you GAVE them to her by ticking " Please keep my earnings"

Have a good one

Belle

BBTV

20th May 2005, 11:04

It doesnt matter if I checked every box or not. HELLO IDIOTS!! You people are so one sided and obviously close-minded. I clearly have shown you the law, gave you examples of how she is suppose to have her term set up.

Talking about I cant speak english. Can you guys read it? When you guys are done hoofing and poofing you can not rebuff this fact of law. She also is required to show "the consumer, prior to consenting, is provided with a clear and conspicuous statement--"

Is she dumb how is that a clear and conspicuous statement

I mean how **** hard is it to write a terms page.
:baaa: Would it not be time for a banning here????? :!: :!: :!:

LouCypher

20th May 2005, 12:52

:baaa: Would it not be time for a banning here????? :!: :!: :!: :stupid: My name is George W. Bush, and I support this message.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 14:16

You say that I cheat may mean something else or be just another category...
In that case...What did you assume that "delete me" meant.??

Exactly my point if she does not disclose what the hell the delete me intersts box is in her terms, than people can assume what ever the hell they want. Maybe i thought it meant delete my crappy credit report. How many times do i have to repeat this. She has to "(II) the
right of the consumer to withdraw the consent to have the
record PROVIDE or made AVAILABLE in an electronic form and
of any CONDITIONS, CONSEQUENCES (which may include
termination of the parties' relationship)".

You do understand that right? This doesnt just apply for i cheat, any conditions of her website need to be dislosed in her terms page. So how do you people sit here and try and make some run a round excuse for her obvious lack of knowledge pertaining to internet commerce. I have spelled it out for you guys, and obviously for some the learning process stopped in grade school.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 14:40

:baaa: Would it not be time for a banning here????? :!: :!: :!:

LOL ....why ban me because beehivemail.com supports dont have any legitimate
response to the my posts. Now its ban me huh, why because i have proved that beehivemail.com is wrong and obviosly proved every posts her supports have made as innaccurate hype. It just shows the actual education level of her supporters. How can you sit there and try and what talk your beehivemail.com's
legal obligations. I shown u the law, why dont you guys find another topic to try and whine about because no matter what you post when it boils down to it she is wrong her site is not in compliance with the E-Sign legislation. Shouldnt we ban freebie since she is blatantly exploiting members by not fixing her terms page. I even underline the parts for her that she needs to disclose things that can teminate the agreement and it need to be A CLEAR AND CONSPICuOUS statement I.E. ..... checking the wrong intersts box, but no whats her response and actions to fix her site She posted this

... "oh...for those who are sooooo concerned about the silly interests I did add this to the signup page..."Select categories of interest to you: Be sure to choose carefully and honestly"

HELLO that isnt clear and conspicuous

someone maybe interested in cheating, it doesnt mean they are cheating her site. Wake up!

and she doesnt say "the consequences (which may include
termination of the parties' relationship), or fees in the
event of such withdrawal;"

Thirdly she doesnt put it on her terms page.
I mean is she just slow? LOL

Why didnt she just add to her terms page the consequences of checking the i cheat box. I mean christ it doesnt take a rocket scientist to fix it. Jesus one paragraph added to her terms page would cover this whole issue. But maybe theres another motive why she doesnt. So she can use it as some self-satisfying reason to let members view the advertisers for free....obviously boosting her profit margin. Now seriously for all you beehive.com supports can you make a post that has a VALID, LEGAL, reason why she does no diclose the terms to her website. When obvioisly i have shown you all the law saying she has to. Maybe one of you guys can show case law on internet commerce rebuffing the E-Sign law. Well enough. My point is valid and really can't be argued.

AnI4AnI

20th May 2005, 14:56

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 15:45

We're not the ones with the comprehension problem.

Where is Rob or Ron or Lexie or Alora lately? Why is this forum being overun by spammers and now this guy who seems to think it's perfectly normal to run around cussing and calling everyone idiots? Isn't that against the rules here?

I thought we established she was covered with the warning about "...should any instances of fraud occur...." You attempted to defraud her by checking all the boxes.

Jaydilla, people like you are what costs taxpayers tons of money in the long run when they file frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits like the people who want to blame McDonald's for their own poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. Delete my account means delete my account...cheeseburgers and milkshakes are packed with calories....coffee is usually hot...if you drop a toaster in your bath water, you'll probably get electrocuted....chain-saws aren't meant to trim your bangs with and I CHEAT MEANS I CHEAT.

So what if i cheat means i cheat or if it means i pick my butt. If she does not disclose "the consequences (which may include
termination of the parties' relationship), or fees in the
event of such withdrawal;" the box can mean whatever any interprets it as. And as far as the terms page goes the quote here is "Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action"

My response to that is this. Since she doesnt tell you that checking interests she has deemed but failed to disclose as fraudualnt that cant be binding and any judge would dismiss that part of her terms, secondly even checking the i cheat box was fraudulant in what respects? I never defrauded the site, i did as any other member does as well, i visited advertisers. How is that fraudulant, and as a matter of fact after reviewing her terms page more No where in her terms does she disclose the fee of such termination. I.E. not paying the dollar she owes me. But look at the bottom of her terms whats this say....

"ADDED 3/30/05 IF you are unhappy here, let me know, I will pay you and you can go...IF I am unhappy with you here, the same applies. I am NOT going to participate in debates with people who have broken my rules, I am going to delete them."

So now what? She can't even hold up the parts of her terms that she does disclose! I think she is the one who defrauded me of my time. How can you say i was fraudulant if i did everything that she has disclosed in her terms. Where is the fraud. I followed the terms of her site. These are the terms and conditions that she covers in her terms page.

1. I never sent a non english email to her
2. I never clicked a cheat link in any email.
3. I did not make more than 1 account.
4. I did not spam any site with a referring url.
5. I did not enter a false county
6. I'm older than 18
7. My email box was never full and no emails bounced back.
8. I'm from the united states
9. I didnt even use the PTSUP section.

So how would i have been "fraudulant" if i followed every rule she has on her website. The fact is I wasnt fraudulant. What other conclusion could you come up with. If you follow the terms of a website your not defrauding it.

You guys try to change the meaning of a sentence in her terms, so whats this mean in her terms?
"ADDED 3/30/05 IF you are unhappy here, let me know, I will pay you and you can go...IF I am unhappy with you here, the same applies. I am NOT going to participate in debates with people who have broken my rules, I am going to delete them."

To me that means if your not happy she will pay you account closed. also is she is unhappy with you she will pay you and close your account. So where is my money Cheri? You can't even live up to the terms you set forth on your page, and you try and validate a term you dont even have on your site. Talk about a total hypicrit. If your posts on this forum ever want merit cheri start living up to your agreements. To me your nothing but a thief.

BBTV

20th May 2005, 20:27

LOL ....why ban me because beehivemail.com supports dont have any legitimate......No, not because you are hitting on beehivemail, but because the Posting Rules of GPTBoycott (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3246) where there among other things are stated that you are not to:"Comments meant to incite, embarrass or ridicule another member, including personal attacks;" Calling ppl IDIOTS and other "things" is a violation of those rules I guess. Just take a look at the rules.

cjay

20th May 2005, 21:00

This is getting old real fast!

jaydilla, you messed up....you were deleted.......DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!

If you check any of the same type of keywords at my sites..........YOU WILL BE DELETED ALSO!

This really sounds like more of a vendetta against Cheri.

I would be very careful about to whom you call what.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 21:26

This is getting old real fast!

jaydilla, you messed up

Oh of course a response from a ptr webmaster oh i wonder what she was goign to say. Did i mess up? or did cheri? you people make vague remarks like you messed up, why, because you people cant even make a legitmate rebuttal to my posts. I have shown you people the law and to make comment to the other guy, i dont know what else to say about people i have clearly shown them the law and how it should apply to their terms of their websites, ive said it over and over again, and truthfully the only defintion i can come up with for them is a idiot. I mean its there in black and white, the law, cheris terms page which evryone can read, the factual bases of this whole thing i followed every rule that i was contractualy liable for via her terms page.
Shown that cheri not only makes up new rules as often as she changes her underwear, I also showed she broke her own terms by not paying upon account cancellation, which she has written right there in her terms. I didnt write the **** page. But no now her new rule a few posts ago was that during sign up those arent interests boxes they are requests. Truthfully you PTR webmasters comments are taken with a grain of salt, any 3rd party review of this would clearly show THAT I DID EVERYTHING ON HER TERMS PAGE SHE REQUIRED, I FOLLOWED EVERY RULE ON HER WEBSITE. That is what i was bound to. And anyone who keeps repeatedly posting a rebuttal must be a idot, because anyone else would clearly see that cheri is wrong, she broke the contract by not following her own terms. Your vague you messed up remarks are typical of the 3rd rate sites like beehivemail.com, because she cant even make one legitimate reply to my posts, i.e. quote a rule/condition of her website which i violated. She cant even do that. Her best come back was those arent interests you checking but requests.....and all of us know what those boxes are intended for. And the guy who posted above this comment his best comeback is to try to ban me fom the forum. Why? because you dont want any riffs in your little lake. Try to suppress peoples views that arent the same as yours. Please. It just goes to show how poorly she runs her site that she cant even show a rule that i violated thats on her website, cant copy and paste one rule i broke, but that i can actually point to a rule of hers she broke. Wake up people you may not like me but if you have kept up with this whole issue and read alot of these ptr webmasters replies shows a biased reply not to mention they dont know what hell their even talking about. Its sad that I have to be so much smarter than they are, they obviously cant read or understand the law i quoted them or they would have conceaded their point by now. Or in cheris case she either cant read or understand her own **** terms/conditions she wrote.

dcwike

20th May 2005, 21:43

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, has anyone contacted Rob yet?

FYI:

cheat: (1) To deceive or defraud (2) To delude; to trick (3) to practice fraud or act dishonestly. (source: doubleday dictionary)

Now, the Beehive terms pertaining to this:

[QUOTE from tos]
By signing up and actively using the beehivemail.com program you agree to all terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. beehivemail.com may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members.

Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action [END QUOTE]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, notice anything here?

I cheat (means I commit fraud or dishonest activity)

When she checked into your account, she found every item in the category section checked.

Now, if you didn't care enough to READ (which is what we get paid to do) what you checked, then, by your own agreement you admitted you cheat; that you want to be deleted; that you want your earnings donated.

Evidently, when Cherri checked your account, she DID read what you checked, and acted accordingly.

Webmasters are NOT babysitters. They don't have to notify you and tell you that you made a mistake and ask you to go back and uncheck anything. The portion of the terms listed above WERE there PRIOR to your sign up.

It was your own carelessness that caused your deletion - not a whim of a webmistress.

Now, if you REALLY want to get into the law, there is such a law as defamation of character or the attempt of such by committing public libel against someone.

This forum is public to all who have access to the internet. Therefore, to accuse someone of 'stealing' your money, when in actuality, the person was merely acting within the terms of the agreement, is, by law, proof that you are, in fact, attempting to defame and, deliberately, wrongly accuse someone.

Now, jaydilla, for your own sake, I advise you to refrain from the vulgar language, the personal attacks, and the name calling. If you cannot do so, then, I, myself, will notify the proper authorities of this forum and request that you be banned from posting here.

jaydilla

20th May 2005, 22:02

[QUOTE=dcwike]Hmmmmmmmmmmm, has anyone contacted Rob yet?

FYI:

cheat: (1) To deceive or defraud (2) To delude; to trick (3) to practice fraud or act dishonestly. (source: doubleday dictionary)

Now, the Beehive terms pertaining to this:

[QUOTE from tos]
By signing up and actively using the beehivemail.com program you agree to all terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. beehivemail.com may, at any time, choose to edit, add and/or delete portions of this agreement and impose changes without prior notification of its members.

Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action [END QUOTE]

Hmmmmmmmmmm, notice anything here?

ok lets just say your right, and ill get to that in a few lines, than should her term/condition about account cancellation be enforced. One your saying that I have to follow her terms, but she doesnt? She wrote the **** term so follow your own rules. Now to address this Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action. There is no fraud if a member followed every rules she put in her terms. which i outlined in this post but i will show them again for you guys.

1. I never sent a non english email to her
2. I never clicked a cheat link in any email.
3. I did not make more than 1 account.
4. I did not spam any site with a referring url.
5. I did not enter a false county
6. I'm older than 18
7. My email box was never full and no emails bounced back.
8. I'm from the united states
9. I didnt even use the PTSUP section.

Those basically are the rules of her terms. So if i didnt violate not one rule she set forth where is the fraud? She has to have the rule in her terms to deem an action fraudulant. Put more than 5 seconds of thought in to your responses. Its common sense if the rule is not stated than the fraud which is implied by this non existant rule isnt valid. I swear and whats the admin going to do if he actually read the whole disagreement im sure he will probably agree with me. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You cant sit there and try to make a valid point about that paragraph in her terms, and you dont even adress the issue of her account cancellation. Right there just goes to show the depth of thought you put into your reply to this post, obviously it was a one=sided byass response before a actual thought was put into, because if it wasnt a byass response a 3rd party view would possible have quoted that line but that also agreed with me and quoted her account cancellation term and called it a draw. So your byass point i pretty much have dismissed. Ok who's next. And my other point is the
GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT which governs ecommerce states that
"Section 101(c)(1) of the Act provides that
information required by law to be in writing can be made available electronically to a consumer only if he or she affirmatively consents to receive the information electronically4 and the business clearly and
conspicuously discloses specified information to the consumer before obtaining his or her consent." It goes on but its simple. She has to disclose in her terms/conditions page any action that would alter the legal contract. No
where does it state not only on her terms page but no where on her whole website does she mention the cheat box and that checking it would constitute a termination of the contract. Not only this fact but the other fact how is putting this cheat box that in a interest category on signup as a possible interest for the service your signing up for. ! she states no rule of a cheat box, therefor when checking the box a cunsumer is lead to believe it is a interest just like all the others. Her just stating that they arent interest boxes but actually request to the webmaster clearly shows that the boxes actual purposes are not clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

dcwike

20th May 2005, 23:41

You picked your items of interest.

So, you were interested in cheating, in having your account deleted, and donating your earnings.

Now, to be interested in something means things you like to do.

Even though you've not cheated, your interest in cheating was enough cause to delete your account.

Annnnnnnnnnd, being that you checked "Delete me," she deleted you.

And, because you checked "donate my earnings" she didn't have to pay you.

Documentation carries more weight than verbal accusations.

You documented that you cheat, that you wanted your earnings donated and that you wanted your account deleted.

Plain and simple.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 00:49

Actually you are wrong, a typical response from someone who doesnt know what he is talking about. And again you notice how they don't mention her term about payout on a cancelled account. Why because as stupid as the rebuttals are about the the interests boxes you can imagine a rebuttal about something she actually has on her terms page....ok since technical law is above almost all your heads.....ill try to talk down to your comprehension levels. Ok let me see how can i talk at a lower intelligance level. Ok lets just say all your 3rd grade replies were all correct and that Bill Clinton and all these federal agencies that enforce this law are all wrong, and that a second rate webmaster and her little cliche of obvious moronic people are right. Don't you still think it is poor business practice to have a member stay active, who you know as the webmaster checked a wrong box, now give me numbers here im just curious....i want numbers on this reply....how many days do you go before you delete his account. 1 3 5 days?
What? Do you think it's right to wait til he reaches payout? Come on Cheri this is why you PTR sites have the crappy reputation that you do, and you have to have a forum like this to try and justify your poor site management and your overall lack of any kind of business ethics. Ok, now theres my response the the lower level educated readers, maybe they can understand in a more simple-simon description.

dcwike

21st May 2005, 02:29

Quote from jadilla post:

".......Don't you still think it is poor business practice to have a member stay active, who you know as the webmaster checked a wrong box,.........."

Response:

Uh, are you saying that every webmaster should check every member's data upon signup?

Uh, Helloooooooooooooooooooo.

At the most, webmasters make "random" checks on accounts, mainly looking to ensure that payment info is correct, or countries. Now, take note, I said random. Occassionally they will see that a number of people have made mistakes. Also take note, I said occassionally and a number of - not all. Then, a webmaster may make a general announcement of her findings in a mass message and give a period of time for corrections. No names need mentioned. That way, everyone will double check their own accounts.

Now, if you think a webmaster checks every member's data upon sign up, then, it is you who has a lot to learn. Most times, a thorough check on an account isn't made until that person requests payout.

It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that everything is correct - including your interests - not the webmaster's. And, it is YOUR responsibility to REALIZE that certain "interests" are listed to catch cheaters. Even a moron (actually a term meaning 12-year-old) knows what "cheat" means.

I don't need to call you names or imply what I think your educational level is to get my point across. And, frankly, the bias is not on my end and I don't make accusations that I can't back up with facts.

You say you are over 18, but, that, alone does not make you mature. Maturity does not only mean a fully grown body, it also means fully grown in character. When mature people have differences of opinions, there is no childish name calling or personal attacks on others because they're mad and can't accept their own mistakes.

It also takes maturity to comprehend what you read. And, by your own admission, you've exposed your comprehension level as well as your level of maturity just by the interests you checked when you signed up for Beehive - and, in your posts, here.

Now, if those interests were checked by mistake, then, as a mature person, you should have accepted the consequences. And, you would have take the matter up with the webmistress in private, instead of making blatant accusations here.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 03:12

Quote from jadilla post:

".......Don't you still think it is poor business practice to have a member stay active, who you know as the webmaster checked a wrong box,.........."

Response:

Uh, are you saying that every webmaster should check every member's data upon signup?

Uh, Helloooooooooooooooooooo.

At the most, webmasters make "random" checks on accounts, mainly looking to ensure that payment info is correct, or countries. Now, take note, I said random. Occassionally they will see that a number of people have made mistakes. Also take note, I said occassionally and a number of - not all. Then, a webmaster may make a general announcement of her findings in a mass message and give a period of time for corrections. No names need mentioned. That way, everyone will double check their own accounts.

Now, if you think a webmaster checks every member's data upon sign up, then, it is you who has a lot to learn. Most times, a thorough check on an account isn't made until that person requests payout.

It is YOUR responsibility to ensure that everything is correct - including your interests - not the webmaster's.

Wrong wrong again.....obviously you like the rest are ignorant to the law that governs internet commerce. It is the responsibility of the webmaster to have a clear and conspuious terms page. Obviously her terms page isnt clear and conspicous if she doesnt even mention the cheat box. Obviously you dont have any factual refernces, I on the other hand have shown everyone here the law gave u the website so u can review it, but you guys can't even reference a term anywhere on here website that says those are cheats and not actually interests. And yet again you can obviosly see you are byassed, because just like the others like you rebuff my view on the cheat boxes, even if your right, you still ignore the other complaint. Look at the bottom of her terms page about her terminating a account term. She clearly says she will still pay you. Why do you beehive.com members ignore that issue. Why obviously because your all just bashers trying to save your webmasters butt.
So lets just say the whole i cheat box wasnt a issue and we are just talking about her cancelling the account. Can any of you know it alls find a excuse for her not paying me? If so state it here, and refernce something with your reason, I have referenced her own rule shoing she will still pay you after account termination. Well I'll be eagerly awaiting the reply to that and see how distorted you guys can get.

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 03:24

Reallybarb

21st May 2005, 03:41

Honestly, where IS all the staff here???? I've never seen such a petulant, obnoxious forum member get away with so much hateful, insulting prattle on any forum I've read.

Helloooooo!! Lexie, Rob, Alora....is anybody in there???

I'm wondering the same thing, have they deserted the forum? Can we just say any stupid vile thing that pops in our heads, too?

dcwike

21st May 2005, 03:42

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 03:45

I'm wondering the same thing, have they deserted the forum? Can we just say any stupid vile thing that pops in our heads, too?

Yeah i admit i get hot tempered and should stop calling people idiots, but jesus christ how much more do these people need to concead. I have shown everyone the law and somehow they cant or dont understand it because they kepp like ignoring it. I mean it cant be anymore simple. The terms page is our contract, Find a term on that page that i violated....that cant they keep referring to the cheat box which isnt on the terms page, so it does not affect our contract. HOW CAN ANY educated person try and stipulate otherwise.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 03:53

lmao@anI4anI

Did any of you ever see someone rant and rave, cuss and blame, saying everyone else is wrong and only they are right? They mis-interpret what the majority interprets as a rule. And, what in hill does Bill Clinton have to do with it all? Do you not think this is a bit abnormal?

I don't think we need the moderators here, I think we need men in white coats.

You don't know why i mentioned bill clinton? That question right there shows you dont know what your talking about. I referenced Bill Clinton because he is the president who signed into the into law The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. But oh wait thats right law. You know the things that protect people you know a law see they make laws to protect people from a crime. You know what a law is right? Do i need to post a defintion of what law is for you people. I love how you all just ignore it....Your majority that you refer to havent even heard of this law until i mentioned it. Not even the webmasters who are suppose to comply with it. So when one of you endorsers of this fraudulant site actually read that law let me know. But wait cheris rule that she doesnt even have on her website somehow supercedes federal law. Wow I wish I had her authority.

lil crusader

21st May 2005, 04:48

Jaydilla, although I understand your principle I can only state TOS are not worth the paper they are printed on. Program Owners or webmasters or whatever glorified title you would care to give them all have the notion that they are GODs or the A typical spoiled kid that its "my ball and you play by my rules or I will go home,hold my breath till I turn blue or I will let you play till it time to pay and then you get the shaft" in this case. Beehive owner/wm/PO is like the rest, she sounds like an ET of Clixbuxx fame which is another wm/po/GOD that needs to be put out of business. There is no control over much of anything on the internet so whiners like her and ET will multiply and villify till everyone gets a heavy dose of common sense and doesn't sign up for programs. JMO

Whoa Merlin....you know I backed you totally in your dispute with ET....and you also know how I was treated as a result of my standing up for you.

But you're way out of line on this one.....I don't know how you can possibly compare Cheri with ET.

It's obvious you don't have any idea who she is or know anything about her. If you did, you'd realize how ludicrous your comparison is.

dcwike

21st May 2005, 06:22

There was a time I had the same pesimistic view as Merlin. This business is definitely a rat race when it comes to scam and such.

However, after being out of PTR for nearly a year, I decided to try again. And, I also learned what to look for in a site. I learned sustainability before it was even mentioned here. And, I HAVE found a few sites that are decent. Proud to say I've been paid more than once from them, and, the owners do not act like kings and queens, or spoiled brats.

Cherri happens to be one of the few who have helped me regain my trust in this business. To this day, I find her honest, reliable, and very sustainable. But, it's not ONLY the owner that counts. Members, too, must be honest and all must work as a team in order for a program to work.

Yes, there are misunderstandings, but, with questions and a mature attitude, as has been demonstrated by all of us at Beehive, the problems are worked out in a positive manner.

It appears that jadilla has not learned to control his anger. His anger flared, and he blamed someone else for his own careless mistakes, rather than accept the consequences. He then made the mole hill into a hill.

And, when he saw posts that disagreed with him his anger flared more, belittled those who posted and called them names - and turned a simple solution into a mountain.

Now, if he got gilted by Tasia's Paid Links, or any of ET's programs, Jay's Paid mails, or any of those sites, he'd have a legitimate gripe.

But, not here. Not when he admitted he checked items that were there to obviously catch cheaters.

He may know the law, but, he lacks common interpretation. And, because he can't handle disagreement, he tried twisting the interpretation to make himself appear to be right. Instead, he made himself the fool.

Jaydilla, even though I dislike your method of posting, that's not to say I have any disrespect for you. And, though I AM a member of Beehive, bias is not in my nature. My education level is not that of third grade, nor am I ignorant.

I am just a human being, like you. I've been burned more than once in PTR, but, I still enjoy the ones that work. It's not like this is my job, or that I depend on the money to pay my bills. It's a challenge to find programs that pay and where members and owners work as a team.

Beehive happens to be one of those programs.

bellestraker

21st May 2005, 07:53

But, not here. Not when he admitted he checked items that were there to obviously catch cheaters.

He may know the law, but, he lacks common interpretation. And, because he can't handle disagreement, he tried twisting the interpretation to make himself appear to be right. Instead, he made himself the fool.
.

I do not understand what "common interpreation of law" means.??

I already posted in another thread and am completely confused how I really stand on this.Now after reading even more I am beginning to wonder if the op may be "legally correct".

If the law says that to alter anything in the tos it must be clearly stated etc. ( not going to repeat..the link and a breakdown are in Jays post for anyone to read ) It seems to me by reading the link that he may be legally correct...even though it seems ridiculous.

It certainly would not be the first law which can also be used for other than its original intent.

Part of the reason some are getting angry is his seeming denial of ticking "I cheat" as being any indication of cheating ie: not reading/comprehending.the interests.

I am lousy at explaining law ( and not much better at understanding)but does what he ticked even matter according to the info in the link he supplied.

Are we simply "not hearing" because we dont agree??

I wonder if his link was produced to validate a complaint against someone else ..if it might not have been jumped all over in another way...as the "PROOF" that some po who is not liked...was in vioation of tos.

It is unfortunate that this has come up against a po who is liked and who we all believe is doing her dammedest to run a fair site but if you ignore the fact that you "like freebie" and like the site..and simply concentrate on the info from the link...
Is he right??

I am not legally savvy enough to know for sure..but it appears that way to me.
Unfortunately maybe..but some laws can be used as well as misused. ( as that used in the McDonald coffee scam which has been mentioned by a couple of us).

Just a thought

Have a good one

Belle

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 08:29

bellestraker

21st May 2005, 09:12

Belle, we've been discussing Contract Law and Unconscionability in ays threads for months and now you're acting like you've never heard of it before??? LOL Wow...amazing. You mean all those lengthy arguments you posted and this is all new to you? Unbelievable. Simply amazing. But, when presented in ays threads, it doesn't apply...it has no bearing...it isn't even worth grasping as a concept...not even worth a moment to think about...to contemplate...yet here you are now acting like it's all new to you. Do you even read people's posts or do you just skim over them and pick up a word or two here and there then start writing whatever comes into your head?

Most posts I read but I do confess to skimming many of yours. You see once someone starts hollering things like unconcionability and throws it in with a whole lot of income tax fraud and breach of privacy and on and on...then it just begins to appear to me that they cant quite figure out what peg to hang their hat on.

An example is the income tax fraud which has been mentioned so often. How the hell does anyone know what amount of income tax someone else pays..or if they pay any..yet I.T. fraud has been INCLUDED as one of ays crimes.

IN any case...yes I have read this information before but in most cases I did not see a definite case in it ( and am still not sure I do) but then I do not pretend to have one of those "wonderful minds".

I have been known to miss a thing or two as well.
That often happens when people muddy the landscape by adding all kinds of unsubstantiated charges to buff up any possible real ones.

Glad you enjoyed my post.

Have a good one

Belle

dcwike

21st May 2005, 09:48

Basically, as I see it, most PTR tos are similiar, the same ole, same ole terms that pretty much protect the interests of the site. Just like contracts drawn up for loans, cars, and homes to protect the lenders from loss of equity.

Now, when I say "common interpretation" I mean, that the interpretations of contracts is understood as a majority - as most people understand the terms the same way.

All laws can be debated by varying interpretation.

For example, contract agreements between employers and employees are often settled through arbitration when the two sides disagree on the terms.

PTR lacks arbitration, so we battle it out here.

I'm saying this whole thing could have been avoided by private compromise between the webmaster and this member had it been approached in the proper manner.

It does not work all the time, especially when you try compromising with a tyrant (as I did with the owner of Tasia's paid links) or a bully, or those who DO think they are gods.

But, from my experience with Cherri, whether I like her or not, I have seen no tyrantial outbursts, no irratical actions, etc. like I saw with the others.

In fact, she will bend over backwards to help a member succeed. Unlike some, she answers questions, treats her members with respect, and explains things you don't understand. But, she's a business woman, too. And that deserves the same respect she gives us.

Most of us show such respect by genuinely looking over the interests and checking those that appeal to us. It's natural to do that when you sign up for a program. And, when we see such things as "I cheat, Delete me, or Donate my earnings," we do not check them.

Yes, mistakes are made, but, come on. To check ALL of them is blatant disrespect for the purpose of putting cheat catching items in the list. And, who actually knows for sure he didn't cheat?

Beehive ads rarely go above 1/4 cent. Now, according to Cherri, jaydilla was only with the site for 9 days. I don't think she sends enough ads in that amount of time to reach payout. 4 ads to reach a penny, 400 ads to reach $1. That averages out to over 44 ads per day.

Don't get me wrong. There ARE Buzz Bucks where you get money for signing up for credit cards, BMG, and other offers, but, most of THEM ad up to more than $1. I, myself, signed up for Yyves Roacher, made a purchase and earned $3.50 for doing so. I was with the program over 4 weeks, not clicking on Buzz Bucks, and barely reached payout by then. So, I know it takes more than 9 days to earn $1 just by clicking links in emails.

My interpretation of the the second paragraph (tos) describing that cheaters, etc. will be deleted, includes checking the cheat catching "interests." They are there for a purpose, and she does not have to continuously forwarn anyone of them.

Do any of you check them? Isn't it obvious as to why you don't? That's common interpretation.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 10:30

My interpretation of the the second paragraph (tos) describing that cheaters, etc. will be deleted, includes checking the cheat catching "interests." They are there for a purpose, and she does not have to continuously forwarn anyone of them.

Do any of you check them? Isn't it obvious as to why you don't? That's common interpretation.
You did not quote the paragraph your interpreting the actual paragrarh says
"ADDED 3/30/05..from time to time a cheat link to catch bots is sent, if you click this you are deleted and Never reinstated. Additional cheat links sent in mail, if you click you are fined the first time, deleted the 2nd, this is being enforced now....our advertisers are paying for real people, not bots, real people who really speak English and understand English...if you do , this program is NOT for you, sorry. Additionally, anyone writing the wm in another language is deleted."
She addressed the cheat links she sends in emails , that does not address the interests boxes. This paragraph here is a good example here she made a clear and conspuious statement as to what happens to a member if they click a cheat link in a email. This paragraph is legally binding as she has disclosed what happens to someone he clicks a cheat link in a email. How can you call the interests box a cheat when she lables the box a interest. Just because the interest is named cheat doesnt infer that it is a cheat link, she refers the the boxes as interests

jaydilla's bro

21st May 2005, 11:09

Hi All
I am Jame's brother. I am an internet marketer (primarily search marketing) who runs about a dozen various sites, have a couple clients, and has sold a few thousand ebooks about search marketing.

my brother is a bit heated. he means nothing personal, it is common of social software to allow random heated debates to escelate when the topic at hand is not that important. one of my favorite articles on the topic:
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_user.html
if you read enough forums there are a number of hate threads about me as well.

I think it is exceptionally lousy when extra people jump into a thread to add no legitimate value just because they feel like attacking a person because everyone else is. If that last sentence describes you then you are a horrible human being.

having said that, I probably would not be too inclined to agree with my brother even if he told me that I had two arms if he expressed himself using statements like

> Wrong wrong again.....obviously you like the rest are ignorant to the law that governs internet commerce.

In this thread I think he is right (of course tact would be nice too), but I still have to express disappointment in the effort that went into this thread or him even joining a pay to read program.

there are too many overt ads, product placements, and submliminal ads running the world anyway. no reason to trade more of your life to read more of them.

my theory is that you can read whatever you are deeply & specifically interested in, and then build a business model around it instead of getting paid to read ads. have been trying to help my brother a lot on that front, but as you can see he is a bit stuborn ;)

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 11:55

Just a bit stubborn. LOL Ok that is my brother Aaron, I did not bring him into this to side with me. As I asked him here because of his background as it relates to the internet. I was hoping he would have given a better background as to why his opinion would matter. So I will give you his background. He is one of the industry leaders in Search Engine marketing http://www.search-marketing.info/ and search engine optimization. He has been featured in several radio talk shows and newspapers as a authorative figure relating websites ethics as it pertains to search engines which covers almost all ethics as it pertains to the internet as a whole. He has been mentioned in several online news sources
http://www.webpronews.com/ebusiness/sitepromotion/wpn-3-20040511WebsiteSubmissionJusttheFacts.html

he sits on board of advisors for the Global Neoroscience Initiative Foundatation
http://neuroinitiative.org/mod-htmlpages-display-pid-14.html
You can scroll down for his bio and picture on that site.

He wrote a ebook http://seobook.com redefining Search Engine Optimization, and is now held as a industry standard. Ok, as that is his background as to show his knowledge of the internet as a whole and why i was asking for him to review the whole topic as he would have to reasearch the terms page the and the law . But since its 4:00 a.m. he just did a quick scan of it and did not put a in depth analyses, and oh trust me he wouldnt hesitate to tell me im worng. One thing he has very high business ethics Testimonials of his practice can be reviewed here
http://www.search-marketing.info/testimonials.htm
http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread9683.html

Although his response was pretty vague i think people just need to slow down and really if this was a webmaster dislike on this forum right now these members would be praising me for finding this law for them and helping pave a way. Like I have said before I dont think she purposely made her website to defraud anyone. I even said that exact sentence my IFCC complaint. But as everyone can see theres a problem. And I do aplogize to everyone for calling you guys names, I stopped and took a few hours to cool off. As for calling people names for that i am wrong. But I would like to find more authorative figure in the internet. i will be inviting Joseph Reagle to review this topic. Josephs background in the internet is very extensive, you can review his profile here http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/ As a member of the world wide web consortium he has very deep knowledge to the inter, its laws, and etc. I do not know if he will accept my invitation as he has a working knowledge of these issues, but as you can see from his bio a pretty busy guy. Now I'll start blabbing again i guess. I just want to politely restate my view. And get a person that has knowledge of the internet to review this.
Even though my bothers point was vague it did favor my view on this subject.
If beehivemai.com still feels that they are right why not bring a unbiased 3rd party view that has actual knowledge of the internet to give a unbiased opinion of the situation, and even what would be great is if we could find a medium here and have a authorive figure even propose a resolution. Well maybe we can get some more cool headed replies, as i again am sorry for calling you guys names.

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 14:04

Most posts I read but I do confess to skimming many of yours. You see once someone starts hollering things like unconcionability and throws it in with a whole lot of income tax fraud and breach of privacy and on and on...then it just begins to appear to me that they cant quite figure out what peg to hang their hat on.

An example is the income tax fraud which has been mentioned so often. How the hell does anyone know what amount of income tax someone else pays..or if they pay any..yet I.T. fraud has been INCLUDED as one of ays crimes.

IN any case...yes I have read this information before but in most cases I did not see a definite case in it ( and am still not sure I do) but then I do not pretend to have one of those "wonderful minds".

I have been known to miss a thing or two as well.
That often happens when people muddy the landscape by adding all kinds of unsubstantiated charges to buff up any possible real ones.

Glad you enjoyed my post.

First, don't ever get the misconception that I "enjoy" your posts, Belle...quite the contrary, I see you as one of the most argumentative people I've ever had the displeasure of knowing existed. I see you splashing around out there, making a lot of noise yet never really saying anything. You insist on others backing things up yet you yourself sling nutty accusations and insininuations with absolutely no proof positive whatsoever. Why don't YOU provide us with some links to some laws that makes the scammers you support legal, and everyone who has a complaint wrong, Belle? I've done my part in providing all the information necessary to validate my points. Lots of others have too, but I don't see YOU doing anything other than twisting people's words and posting whacked-out perceptions of their meanings. Again, a perfect example is your above post where you conveniently omit the parts where we say there COULD BE income tax fraud, or POTENTIAL income tax evasion going on, therefore we would like to see a tax audit done. If you admit to only skimming over my posts, then going on some evil, little rampage to try to disparage me, it isn't going to work because to argue with many of the things I've presented is to argue with those who have so graciously provided their legal expertise and business experience, and who have contributed to and participated in these discussions over the months.

With this issue, you're again bouncing all over the place, first saying one thing, then the other...and the crazy thing is, you're finally grasping what many of us have been saying for months yet you don't even have to propensity to apply it to the ones committing the most fraud.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 14:15

First, don't ever get the misconception that I "enjoy" your posts, Belle...quite the contrary, I see you as one of the most argumentative people I've ever had the displeasure of knowing existed. I see you splashing around out there, making a lot of noise yet never really saying anything. You insist on others backing things up yet you yourself sling nutty accusations and insininuations with absolutely no proof positive whatsoever. Why don't YOU provide us with some links to some laws that makes the scammers you support legal, and everyone who has a complaint wrong, Belle?

Why are you riding belle so hard? there hasnt been any member of this forum that has ever quoted a law when discussing ptr since this forum was made. I am the only one to actually present the law with a link as evidence. So if your going to ride belle so hard about it, shouldn't you be hollaring at everyone else who has expressed a view without quoting a law?

dcwike

21st May 2005, 14:55

Thank you, jadilla, for your apology.

I also understand what you are saying. In a sense, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what you choose as your interests; that the tos does not cover the application of choosing interests, and, therefore, such cannot be used as a means to cancel your account with nonpayment.

I'm sorry, but, I still disagree:

This is the paragraph I was referring to in Beehive tos:

[QUOTE] Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action [END QUOTE]

Now, if you want to involve yourself in PTR, is it not the purpose to read and choose your interests appropriately? Do you not think marking "I cheat" as an interest is inappropriate?

In this instance, by carelessly choosing cheat catching categories it was "deemed to be inappropriate....by beehive.com" and, thus, your membership was terminated.

That's how I see it.

If it was just one cheat catching interest, it could've been overlooked as a mistake. But, to have EVERY cheat catching interest checked, it becomes a mockery. Do you not think mocking Cherri's effort to catch cheaters is inappropriate?

Now, as far as not being paid, look at it this way.

When you go for a job interview, let's say, for a chashier position, and on the application you state, "I steal money." How likely is it that you will be hired?

In this case, it was natural to assume you were interested in joining Beehive, or, you wouldn't have signed up. It was assumed that you read the tos before signing the agreement. But, when it came time for payout, and your account was checked for accuracy, by your own action in checking cheat catching interests, you were telling the webmaster that you not only cheat, but, you want your account deleted, and you want your earnings to be donated. You were, thus, terminated without pay. You got what you asked for.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 15:58

Ok I don't understand how you can site there and say that this part of her terms are legally binding, "Should any instances of fraud, system abuse, or any type of activity deemed to be inappropriate or illegal by beehivemail.com be detected it may result in member termination and possible legal action" ......I have already made this point pretty clear. Just try and listen and just follow me here for a second ok? Do you agree or not that the terms page on her website is the legal contract the the members/webmaster are bound by? I am not being a smart *** about his but I want to do this point by point so we can see what we do agree is valid and what isnt. So lets do this step by step. Can you please just reply to this one question. Do you agree or not that her therms/privacy page is the contract the you agree to. Lets try and focus and getting this resolved today, so just yes or no? I say yes

lil crusader

21st May 2005, 16:11

Can you please just reply to this one question. Do you agree or not that her therms/privacy page is the contract the you agree to. Lets try and focus and getting this resolved today, so just yes or no? I say yes

Fair enough.....And the answer to your question IMO is "no" it is not. This is true for ALL PTRs. Although it's never been tested in a court of law to the best of my knowledge, I believe the majority opinion is that a program's TOS is not at all a legally binding contract for the simple reason that it is totally unilateral and can be changed at anytime by the program owner.

Terms are guidelines/rules, but they are not a contract.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 16:22

Fair enough.....And the answer to your question IMO is "no" it is not. This is true for ALL PTRs. Although it's never been tested in a court of law to the best of my knowledge, I believe the majority opinion is that a program's TOS is not at all a legally binding contract for the simple reason that it is totally unilateral and can be changed at anytime by the program owner.

Terms are guidelines/rules, but they are not a contract.

Ok we need to discuss this issue first then. Did you go to the url i have supplied to you guys. I'm serious lets go there. So seriously this is in PDF format so you need acrobat reader to read it. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/06/esignreport.pdf

Now just skip to page 6 and here ill paste it

" The provision facilitates e-commerce and the use of electronic records and signatures
while enhancing consumer confidence. It preserves the right of consumers to receive written information
required by state and federal law. The provision also discourages deception and fraud by those who might
fail to provide consumers with information the law requires that they receive."

So if the the terms page is not the page which is the information the webmaster are required to disclose, where than is the page where the webmaster if to diclose this information'? lets just address this single question. And lets accept the majorty of replies as to where everyone deems this information is. Lets do it step by step dont go on past just this question.

lil crusader

21st May 2005, 16:39

That website doesn't seem at all applicable to PTRs. It seems to be geared towards retail transactions between online businesses and consumers.

It's impressive, but IMO totally irrelevant.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 16:44

That website doesn't seem at all applicable to PTRs. It seems to be geared towards retail transactions between online businesses and consumers.

It's impressive, but IMO totally irrelevant.

Ok give me 5 minutes to get the url and the page # for you as to who the law applies to. Few minutes as i have to do some searches.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 17:19

I am not trying to be smart *** ok so dont offense, Whatever goverment agency has been affected by the E_SIGN llaw has it on thei site, so please go here as this version is definately alot more user friendly and put in more lamons terms.

http://www.cio.gov/archive/m_00_15_electronic_signatures_sept_2000.html

Not his is html format so we have to scroll paragraph 4. Scroll down to this line is isnt far down from the beginninf of the page
E-SIGN applies broadly to Federal and state statutes and regulations governing private sector (including business-to-business and business-to-consumer) activities. That shows that it does apply to ptr there are only 4 know types of transactions, business to consumer business to business business to governtment and consumer to government. And I think we wont argue that neither side is a government agency. I just want to show that it does cover PTR. Did you find it on the page, its at the begining of the 4th paragraph. OK now after reviewing that section of the law Do you agree now that this law does apply to every website that deals with internet commerce incuding PTR websites. Yes, or no, and please explain why you feel it isnt, and only people who went to the the links and actually read paragraph 4 reply. Can you please elaborate why you feel it doesnt apply and possibly find a factual bases. I.e. a link to another law or something legally saying it doesnt. And not just saying it doesnt because someone doesnt want to admit it. I am only asking for response from 1. a person who went to the link and looked at paragraph 4. Also if you still believe it doesnt apply please do not reply to the
this until you can 1. quote a law and 2. offer a link to that law. This way every reply for now on will have merit and not just be a member ranting. Lets work through this, I will totally say hey my bad if a member can list a law supporting their view. Ok I started to ramble a bit about the replies i aplogize so please everyones welcome to reply to this as we can all wotk together as a community and have a majority rule here as to this subject. But ONLY PEOPLE that have read paragraph 4 of the website reply to this post. Any other reply can we all agree will baseless. Lets just have relevant contentual replies. Also if you still believe it doesnt apply please do not reply to the
this until you can 1. quote a law and 2. offer a link to that law. This way every reply for now on will have merit and not just be a member ranting.
And the only question is does this law apply to PTR sites? I say yes it does.

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 17:49

Why are you riding belle so hard? there hasnt been any member of this forum that has ever quoted a law when discussing ptr since this forum was made. I am the only one to actually present the law with a link as evidence. So if your going to ride belle so hard about it, shouldn't you be hollaring at everyone else who has expressed a view without quoting a law?

Jaydilla, with a few links from threads at this forum and threads at GPF I can knock you on your butt sooner than you can say "Terms of Service." Please, stop acting like you know it all. We've been over these very same things before....many times.

Both you and Belle need to do some homework prior to spouting off.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 17:54

Jaydilla, with a few links from threads at this forum and threads at GPF I can knock you on your butt sooner than you can say "Terms of Service." Please, stop acting like you know it all. We've been over these very same things before....many times.

Both you and Belle need to do some homework prior to spouting off.

As this use to be a post with everyone saying this and that and doing nothing but arguing im asking you nicely to not reply here, This thread is a workgroup thread to determine the E-Sign Legislation. And I welcome you to please show links and law. Please dont link to some other member of a forum that is not a know authorative figure on the internet . I also welcome Also to be fair i would also like to invite members to bring 3rd party view into the forum to give their view. But only people that are know as a authorative figure in some form related to the internet and please have referring urls, like i have with my brother. if you dont have a link to a law that can show the E-Sign legislation doesnt apply to PTR, please make a new thread to complain on, I would rather work through our differences than to just keep arguing ......like you want to do. As per my past post paragraph 4 line 1 . Do we agree E-Sign does govern PTR.

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 18:12

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 18:21

Oh please, get over yourself. This is ridiculous and out of control...

You don't have the authority to ask people what to post, who to post to, what to link to, how to respond and what topics to choose from.

Than what do you propose I am trying to work with everyone. I apologized in for being rudde yesterday. I never said I was a authorative figure. But I'm the only person in this forum that can link to a law and quote it. I can't tell you what to do, but ever since this thread was made you have been nothing but hostile, and I apologized to everyone and am being polite, and look at you...why dont you want to participate in this anyway? Whats it going to hurt to participate in a constructive manner?

Also your last post Jaydilla, with a few links from threads at this forum and threads at GPF I can knock you on your butt sooner than you can say "Terms of Service." Please, stop acting like you know it all. We've been over these very same things before....many times.

Both you and Belle need to do some homework prior to spouting off.
Today 11:19"

I'm waiting let me see those links. Blow me out of the water. But he says im no authorative figure but im the only one with a link, but he says he is some type of knowledgable figure and can blow me out of the water. I'll be waiting for those links. So can you please on your next post show me and everyone else those links please.

lil crusader

21st May 2005, 18:57

jaydilla:

1. AnI is a she, not a he.

2. Trust me, she most definitely could blow you out of the water if she was so inclined.

3. The subjects of "Is a TOS a Legally Binding Contract?" and "Are There Any Laws That Govern PTR?" have been debated and discussed for as long as I've been around here, and I'm sure even before that. It's pretty much agreed that Terms are NOT a contract and that there are absolutely no regulations concerning PTRs. There should be -- some kind of regulation has been pushed for forever -- but as of now, there really is nothing. PTR pretty much comes down to being a matter of trust. We all know nothing in it is guaranteed and the prevailing attitude is basically cautious optimism because many of us have learned that even the nicest people can end up pulling a runner on us.

PTRs have been reported to the FTC, to the FBI, to state attorney generals, to local police forces, to newspapers and TVs, etc. countless times and the response is pretty much always the same: A polite "Thanks, we'll look into it" and then nothing more. And I'm talking about situations involving thousands of people and dollars....not a measly $1.00. In fact, AnI is one of the leaders when it comes to this sort of thing.

You've got to realize that this is not big business.....I don't know if you can even call it a business at all. To be honest, I've never really figured out what PTR is -- it's certainly not anything that deals in tangibles because "earnings" in PTRs are basically monopoly money until such time as they are actually paid out. They exist on a computer screen and that's it. Yes, the deal is we're supposed to be paid for reading and clicking, but that's not a rock-solid agreement and it's one that's easily changed or broken at the whim of a program owner.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

And BTW.....I totally agree with AnI -- your "assignments" are extremely annoying. We're not kids and most of us have been out of school for a long time. Maybe if you'd presented them a little differently they would not have seemed so offensive, but I'm sorry - I am NOT going to respond to underlined demands that tell me precisely what to post and what not to post.

dcwike

21st May 2005, 19:54

Jaydilla, with all due respect for the depth of research you have been doing, I can see no relationship between this act and GPTR programs.

What I'm seeing in this act is that the government is enacting the acceptance of electronical contract agreements between businesses, customers and government agencies as if it was done if we, in person, signed agreements on paper.

Mortgages, banking, online purchases,stocks, foreign purchase (if both parties accept electronic transactions) will now be accepted just as well as personal signatures. Imo, it does NOT apply to PTR. Here's an example:

"Agency activities and requirements that involve information, but do not relate to business, commercial, or consumer transactions, are not within the scope of this legislation. Instead they are addressed by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). Certain laws and regulations involve both GPEA and E-SIGN, especially with respect to record retention requirements in agency regulations that relate to business, consumer and commercial transactions. The attached guidance discusses this interaction"

PTR does not relate to business, commercial, or consumer transactions as is implied in this act. PTR involves information that does not relate to business, commercial or consumer transactions. They are simply advertising agencies that imform their members of opportunities and offers, with incentives to get the reader to look at them. And, look at the following:

"OMB developed this document with substantial help from the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Treasury. This document is intended only for the internal management of the federal government, and does not establish legally binding interpretations, rules or standards. Agencies should exercise their own judgment and discretion in determining how to address the issues discussed in this document in the context of their particular programs. To the extent that agencies are seeking legal advice on specific concerns, they should contact their general counsel, the appropriate component of the Department of Justice, or, for binding legal opinions, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. Nothing in this document is intended to confer any right on any person or group."

Take a lease to rent an apartment, or house, for example. There is a lease contract where the owner of the property can make demands, rules, and regulations that the tenent must abide by. And, in every contract, there is a clause that the owner can make changes in the contract without PRIOR notification to the tenent. They MUST, however, issue a new copy (in the form of ammendments, if need be) of the changes to the tenent, once the changes are made.

This is done all the time in PTR. They are the "owners" and can make their own rules, changes, etc. and use their own interpretations. And, sadly, we readers can only choose one of two things. Either stay and abide by the rules or just quit the program if we don't like them.

So, I am saying NO, this act does NOT pertain to PTR. PTR is an entirely different entity. And, until we can come up with a method to control the the power of PTR owners, there's little we can do but report radical actions to the proper authorities. AnI4anI has posted many links to such.

AnI4AnI

21st May 2005, 20:34

Oh my, Pam...you gots me blushing now... :hehe:

I wasn't going to even come back here for a few days, let this blow over but I'm glad I did now. I'm really glad I did. :)

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 20:35

Jaydilla, with all due respect for the depth of research you have been doing, I can see no relationship between this act and GPTR programs.

What I'm seeing in this act is that the government is enacting the acceptance of electronical contract agreements between businesses, customers and government agencies as if it was done if we, in person, signed agreements on paper.

Mortgages, banking, online purchases,stocks, foreign purchase (if both parties accept electronic transactions) will now be accepted just as well as personal signatures. Imo, it does NOT apply to PTR. Here's an example:

"Agency activities and requirements that involve information, but do not relate to business, commercial, or consumer transactions, are not within the scope of this legislation. Instead they are addressed by the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). Certain laws and regulations involve both GPEA and E-SIGN, especially with respect to record retention requirements in agency regulations that relate to business, consumer and commercial transactions. The attached guidance discusses this interaction"

PTR does not relate to business, commercial, or consumer transactions as is implied in this act. PTR involves information that does not relate to business, commercial or consumer transactions. They are simply advertising agencies that imform their members of opportunities and offers, with incentives to get the reader to look at them. And, look at the following:.

Agency activities and requirements that involve information, but do not relate to business, commercial, or consumer transactions,

How can you say 1. its not a business, 2. thare are no consumer transactions.....example a member signing up...or even the advertiser paying a PTR ....isnt that a commercial transaction?

PTR's arent business? oh so what is it then, PTR's dont deal with ecommerce? what are they payed with monoploy money? I gave you several links, now as these go as it pertains to the Esign. When meantion Agency activities and requirements that involve information, they talk about websites that are informational, that are there purely to inform a person of something, and arent not conducting ecommerce. That holds no merit, cause the abrevaition even says it PAY TO READ. Just read it at face value. If a websites conducting ecommerce the Esign bill does apply to it, it doesnt have to specifiaclly say a ptr thats wht they said business to bussiness or business to consumer, are considered commerce. The wording of the law isnt like some webmasters terms page, where the wording doesnt mean what it actually states. Thats a law your looking at. If beehivemail.com is a information portal like http://www.childabuse.org/ a website like this is what they are address as a informational site. Are actualy going to say that beehivemail.com is similiar to http://www.childabuse.org/ Idon't think so.

jaydilla

21st May 2005, 20:40

I understand you think that there isnt a law, but that law does pertain to PTR. It doesnt specifically mention every type of business it clearly shows that it covers all ecommerce. PTR are commerce site, if money is exchanged for any type of service that is called ecommerce. Reread it please. Now I am sure this has been debated before, but by obviously neither sides of those debates actually researching their arguement. I don't mean to be rude or purposely insult you but I'm sorry I also asked you to show me something that shows it doesnt apply. Do a google search for ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT. And my gosh actually it. It applies to all ecommerce. Heres is the quote from the it.

Executive Summary

On June 30, 2000, Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act(1) ("ESIGN" or "the Act"), to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate and foreign commerce by ensuring the validity and legal effect of contracts entered into electronically. Careful to preserve the underlying consumer protection laws governing consumers' rights to receive certain information in writing, Congress imposed special requirements on businesses that want to use electronic records or signatures in consumer transactions. Section 101(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act requires businesses to obtain from consumers electronic consent or confirmation to receive information electronically that a law requires to be in writing. The Act went into effect in October 2000.

Now I'm sorry that this issue was never clearly defined for webmasters here. But actually there was a law before Esign as well. Although this was not a federal law all 50 states had their own law called Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Also know as UETA. The probrem was with UETA being not a federal law several states had var