(Jun 8, 2018 06:47 AM)test Wrote: If he has a copy of it doesn't that mean someone else leaked it in which case you should be opening a dispute against them? Sounds like Pronouncer didn't break any of your ToS, rather, the person that leaked it to him did.
I bought his previous ebook because he was talking so much shit so I wanted to prove him wrong, sure enough it was all public info. You can’t “leak” something that’s already public, I already posted a CA on this fool but I think he’s just trolling at this point.
Or he’s seriously mentally ill.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jun 8, 2018 06:51 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 06:51 AM by Techius.)
(Jun 8, 2018 06:49 AM)Space Wrote: Techius if your ebook is claiming you are making so much money, what does $10 matter to you? That would be a matter of minutes before you and your clients receive that back. Or is your only source of income your eBook sales?
Why not use this logic against the man who claims to make $500 a day? Why has he spent hours chasing after $35 and why can't he pay $25 for the copy he stole?
I'm not actually under obligation to refund his money, because he hasn't been scammed. I will consider doing a refund out of the good of my heart if he pays me $25.
(Jun 8, 2018 06:51 AM)Techius Wrote: Why not use this logic against the man who claims to make $500 a day? Why has he spent hours chasing after $35 and why can't he pay $25 for the copy he stole?
Because it's $35 he wasted on public information, which you seem to call private, he stole nothing, what if he received the eBook from someone else, then Pronouncer is not the one you should call a stealer, it is the one who leaked it and yourself for stealing public methods and then claiming it as your own.
That's not 'this' logic, that's Pronouncer wanting to receive his money back that he spend on a 'Private' method that is not private.
Are you providing a service and need a thread design? We can exchange our services. Ask me in DM about my portfolio.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jun 8, 2018 06:54 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 06:56 AM by Pronouncer.)
(Jun 8, 2018 06:51 AM)Techius Wrote: Why not use this logic against the man who claims to make $500 a day? Why has he spent hours chasing after $35 and why can't he pay $25 for the copy he stole?
I'm not actually under obligation to refund his money, because he hasn't been scammed. I will consider doing a refund out of the good of my heart if he pays me $25.
He clears up that its not e-whoring
![[Image: bbc2ac9241cecb385ea06fe82354eeb6.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/bbc2ac9241cecb385ea06fe82354eeb6.png)
Meme?
![[Image: r1r4jbI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/r1r4jbI.png)
Bigger meme
![[Image: 8a3af54a97f6d13d569d0769c53d20fd.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/8a3af54a97f6d13d569d0769c53d20fd.png)
(Jun 8, 2018 06:54 AM)Pronouncer Wrote: He clears up that its not e-whoring
Meme?
He calls it 'rich knowledge' 🤣
Are you providing a service and need a thread design? We can exchange our services. Ask me in DM about my portfolio.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
(Jun 8, 2018 06:54 AM)Space Wrote: Because it's $35 he wasted on public information, which you seem to call private, he stole nothing, what if he received the eBook from someone else, then Pronouncer is not the one you should call a stealer, it is the one who leaked it and yourself for stealing public methods and then claiming it as your own.
That's not 'this' logic, that's Pronouncer wanting to receive his money back that he spend on a 'Private' method that is not private.
It's all public information? I'd like to see that claim substantiated by you, otherwise you're frivolously lying.
He's still paying for it. He claims to own both books. If he owns them, then he should pay for it.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
(Jun 8, 2018 06:56 AM)Techius Wrote: It's all public information? I'd like to see that claim substantiated by you, otherwise you're frivolously lying.
He's still paying for it. He claims to own both books. If he owns them, then he should pay for it.
Clearly lied to about your product. YOu stated clearly "ITS NOT E-WHORING"
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM by Techius.)
I said it wasn't about eWhoring. I was correct. I didn't say that eWhoring wasn't in it. I just implied that the book wasn't revolved around eWhoring as a single method. And you know what? That implication was correct, because there are 40 other pages of information in there (close to 50).
You still owe me $24.99 before I consider a refund out of the goodness of my heart.
Can someone just ban this troll already
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jun 8, 2018 06:59 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 06:59 AM by Pronouncer.)
(Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM)Techius Wrote: I said it wasn't about eWhoring. I was correct. I didn't say that eWhoring wasn't in it. I just implied that the book wasn't revolved around eWhoring as a single method. And you know what? That implication was correct, because there are 40 other pages of information in there (close to 50).
You still owe me $24.99 before I consider a refund out of the goodness of my heart.
LOL WHAT? 🤗 🤗 🤗 🤗 🤗 🤗
(Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM)Techius Wrote: I said it wasn't about eWhoring. I was correct. I didn't say that eWhoring wasn't in it. I just implied that the book wasn't revolved around eWhoring as a single method. And you know what? That implication was correct, because there are 40 other pages of information in there (close to 50).
You still owe me $24.99 before I consider a refund out of the goodness of my heart.
You forgetting 20 of your pages are white fillers?
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
(Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM)mvmt Wrote: Can someone just ban this troll already
Sounds like you've run out of arguments. Not like you had any good ones anyway.
Jun 8, 2018 07:01 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 07:01 AM by Space.)
(Jun 8, 2018 06:58 AM)Techius Wrote: I said it wasn't about eWhoring. I was correct. I didn't say that eWhoring wasn't in it. I just implied that the book wasn't revolved around eWhoring as a single method. And you know what? That implication was correct, because there are 40 other pages of information in there (close to 50).
You still owe me $24.99 before I consider a refund out of the goodness of my heart.
43 is not close to 50, it's close to 40.
As Pronouncer claims, half of the pages are blank thus not containing information, which means you would have around 20-23 pages of information which is closer to 20 than to 50.
Are you providing a service and need a thread design? We can exchange our services. Ask me in DM about my portfolio.
(Jun 8, 2018 06:59 AM)Techius Wrote: Sounds like you've run out of arguments. Not like you had any good ones anyway.
Refund the $10. It's not hard to do, just use that little brain of yours.
(Jun 8, 2018 06:59 AM)Techius Wrote: Sounds like you've run out of arguments. Not like you had any good ones anyway.
Believe it or not I have better things to do than argue over $25 for several days. You can keep my money, sounds like you need it a lot more than I do buddy.
DO NOT DEAL WITH THIS MEMBER
Jun 8, 2018 07:02 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 8, 2018 07:03 AM by Pronouncer.)
(Jun 8, 2018 07:01 AM)Space Wrote: 43 is not close to 50, it's close to 40.
As Pronouncer claims, half of the pages are blank thus not containing information, which means you would have around 20-23 pages of information which is closer to 20 than to 50.
Can we meantion 4k Words total. I even have a gif of all the empty pages
![[Image: 4415ffc2d0b9fb20a48e58e285619ea5.gif]](https://i.gyazo.com/4415ffc2d0b9fb20a48e58e285619ea5.gif)
|
