Quote:
Originally posted by charly
This matter was first brought to my attention 3-4 weeks ago when Newgrade sent me a picture which I said was of an underage girl. He said the supplier has seen the IDs was satisfied and will not release them, which Dave agreed was the case in this thread.
This if anything is doing my company more harm than good. I have learnt on the NET it is better to keep quiet than stick by your principles.
|
This is funny as hell... Does anyone else think it seems awfully "convenient" that two of the three main posters (The purchaser of the images, and the content broker bashing Weblegal,) had already talked with each other previous to this post?
Why on earth would newgrade, more than a month later, decide to come on here and post about Weblegal not providing the IDs and the pics being underage, when he still has no proof that they are under 18? He questioned them when he bought them, so obviously that isn't it.
I smell a free content deal for any customers making Weblegal or any other reputable content brokers look bad, considering the quickness with which Paul Markham stepped in, like a vulture, waiting for it?s prey.
Quote:
Originally posted by charly
This if anything is doing my company more harm than good. I have learnt on the NET it is better to keep quiet than stick by your principles.
|
Well, you are definitely right on that point, I think I?ll be removing myself from your annoyingly often mailing list. But of course, I haven?t bought anything from you? But why would I? Your photos make me gag. Then again, there?s not many people I would buy from? Matrix, and a few of Weblegals publishers seem to be about all that are good anymore. I'm sure they're are more, but I haven't found them!
<STANDS BACK TO WAIT FOR THE VULTURE?S FEATHERS TO RUFFLE>