True, true; however, I think in spite of all his sound logic, Mark by now knows (and has ample evidence, even if solely based on what is said about PU on this site) what a soulless group is behind Palo Uber. At some point the buck has to stop and as Mark runs NAM he is free to do whatever he wants on this score; right now he choses to stay out of it and take the position he stated. If he wanted to though he could make the decision to pull their plug and by now it certainly wouldn't be arbitrary.

 

I do agree it's not up to Mark. I mean, come on- at THIS POINT, the fact that

Palo Uber is a bunch of slimeballs with subpar products

should be PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to anyone doing a search on them now.

 

well....... we become "Democrats" did I say that .

 

Being the successful entrepreneur that you are, you should appreciate that Mark has made NAM a free market. It is our responsibility to research the companies and products we buy. By running a simple search you will find some good threads showing peoples distaste for PU, besides the 2.5 happy customers. I at least like having the opportunity to buy some overpriced shyte if I wanted to. I don't want other people to make up my mind for me. But, I did do the research and have seen the bad reviews and such, and will never become a PU customer.

I tried to be more eloquent, but I only graduated summa *** laude

 

I am not advocating that Mark become the "vendor policeman" but he has an obligation to respond to the shady practices of Palo Uber. Especially after the many, many posts with irrefutable evidence of their rebadging others products as there own, their deceptive advertising, and there total lack of participation on this forum (besides the vendor anouncments).

C'mon Mark.....do the right thing!

 

Not a fan of PU here, but I do not support the move to have NAM administrators decide which vendors/products can appear on the site.

For example (and I hate to use them as an example, 'cause I like the vendor and the product): I would not be happy if Mark decided that M7 could not advertise on the site because he has read some very vehement complaints abut their USS (which as some of you know were the source of many threads -- some locked). I have the USS and love it - I read about it before buying (both the positive and negative), and made my decision based on that. That's the way it should work -- don't like the product or vendor? Write a product/vendor review - but don't complain and wait for Mark to decide if the vendor or product meets the heightened NAM standard.

 

WOW. I don't look at this thread for 2 days and...boom. It took me forever to catch up reading all the posts. It is crazy the responses that have generated from this.
What it comes down to is that the information is out there about Palo Uber and the way they do buisness. Like it has been said many times before in this thread, the buyer has the ability to research them before purchasing their products. Whether or not they choose to do so is their choice. We are all now well aware that they rebadge and "Uber" price things, and to some, if not most of us, that is pointless to spend the money on. However, there are obviously people out there who choose to do so.
That's the freedom of it. The ability to have different choices/options available. That's why Mark can't just ban PU. He would essentially be taking away an option(maybe more like, awareness of an option)from the community. Like it has been said, the info is there, people just need to do the research. Even if people read this thread, and more, they may still choose to purchase from Palo Uber. One must remember, "To each is own".

Besides, if they are unhappy with the product, and they've read the threads, they could have even seen it in the name..."PU".

 

Disclaimer: Endorsement or non-endorsement is neither implied or rendered...

 

I'm on Mark's side with this. Again to use M7 as an example, WAAAAY back about 5 years ago they were selling a 'Plasma Booster'....there were considerable threads on this device, and I believe it was considered by most people to be snake oil. Should M7 have been booted from the site? I believe M7 has used that experience to make better products. I would not consider them, now, to be snake oil salesmen.

Banning advertisers would lead to huge problems down the road. It is better to let the market decide.

and let me add: Those market forces work in other ways, as well. If enough people decide that NAM's association with vendors such as Palu Uber are cause to leave the site, then that might make NAM reconsider current practices.

As for the original poster.....man. Way to make Indiana look bad. And good job discrediting yourself at the end, too

 

I thought it was Twain, no?

 

Both did, just credited Winston Churchill.. I believe Lincoln used it also, please correct me if wrong...

 

^
Some discussion on here:
http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150

but I think it's generally attributed to P. Uber

 

Proverbs 17:28 for the win

 

Say what you really think...

 

A single product or problem is not the issue........the complete lack of scruples and the obvious deceptive advertising of all the products is the issue here.

 

for all the people who've had bad P|U experiences to put something in the reviews.... And it wouldn't be hard for some vetting of add copy. P|U has written some things that just don't make any technical sense, and once Mark learns that they are quoting non-existant standards, it wouldn't take much to drop them a note about the add copy and ask them to change it. Seems the debate has become "all or nothing" and there's quite a world of grey...

Now, there are moderators for the threads, why not moderators for the add copy? How about a freakin' grammar checker for the add copy? Peer review could be used, with a group of volenteers or even paid people to go over the add copy to vet it for total BS. It wouldn't take much for an add BS submission link to raise the few BS claims to site supervisors attention for review and possible action. there are tons of middle grounds here that don't require product endorsement or total willful ignorance that are very, very implementable without huge created overhead. Then only the problems would require attention, and then one could run some REAL statistics on the submissions to flag problematic vendors.

Matt

 

That's great. I'm glad that you finished school and feel that it's necessary to make sure I know about it. Me? I have a college education and well, I don't want to publish my income because most would consider it bragging. Besides, none of that matters. I'm currently on a mission to cut my income in half. I don't really enjoy the work I do presently, and have learned that lots of money isn't what life is all about.

I have learned, however, through intensive daily interactions with people from all over the world and from all walks of life, a few things about people, communication, manipulation, and getting results.

If you think I used Wikipedia or an online dictionary to compose my post, I'd have to question the integrity of the school that graduated you. I read and re-read it and don't see any big words in there at all.

I do, however, see you kicking and screaming like a little baby because you aren't getting your demands. The old saying about flies, sugar, and salt is very true. The number one rule for manipulating empathy, sympathy, or cooperation is to be humble. One day you may understand.

Read my post again. It comes from profound experience in human interaction. It comes from experience in politics and experience in court. It comes from experience convincing hundreds of people that generally disagree on everything to agree on one important thing and take concertive action.

I am not your enemy, I simply offer you sound advice. It is your choice to accept or ignore me. Call me names if it makes you feel better, but it certainly won't add to your dwindling credibility.

I am totally on Mark's side on this issue, and I love the way he has responded in this thread. Mark is one of the few Tom Brady's of the world, and the OP reminds me of Ryan Leaf.

 

Respectfully Dr O, sounds like the birth of "Bureaucracy".

 

Or havent you noticed that there are MODERATORS who watch CONTENT here? Why can't that be done for the vendors as well? I've done marketing, and know about presenting products in the most favorable light, without just out and out lying. To allow such behaviour, as many have said, is just plain wrong. Sure the vendors pay to get the access they get. But unless I've really missed something, tons of the value of NAM is member created. What's so wrong about asking that those that post for commercial purposes be held to some sort of standard?

Frankly, demanding honesty from commercial posts is really the basis of a functioning market, and saying "caveat emptor" as a way to cover all frodulent commercial claims is just BS. By extension, we should do away with all commercial fraud or market manipulation laws, and just let the buyers figure out for themselves if they've been screwed!

Sheeze, maybe NAM should have "sponsored" members who can pay a monthly fee to say whatever they want, without editing or moderation! That doesn't make sense, nor does allowing vendors to post pure BS.

While it's all in fasion to shovel crappola all over the concepts of government and beaurocracy, they are both the required infrastructure of funcioning societies. Saying they are inhearently bad is just plain stupid. Or do you want to go back to the days where we just spent all of our days looking for food or throwing sh*t at each other while we hide in trees?

Matt

 

That may be, but I think Dr O's idea warrants more debate; he made some good points about how helpful this could be and that moderating is already being done with threads, so why not ads too?

 

slippery slope!! Alta posts a thread saying a part adds 30hp. M7 claims it's not true. NAM becomes the referee in a vendor pissing match. Who has the resources to prove/disprove either claim independently? If any of you feel that strongly, please, donate to a third part for independent testing (ala Consumer Reports)

 

so there's at least a hint of testing that's been done, one can argue about test methods. But claiming to have created parts that are just pass through, or claiming to adhere to standards that just don't exist or out and out lies that don't pass objective tests....

in the case of claiming F1 requires "10.3" fasteners, how hard is it to ask for a citation? And if one exists, how hard is it to reference it?

Matt

 

Excellent post Matt.......

Now if we could just get Mark off his (chair) to do something about this. It is a real shame that he allows this kind of product advertising.

 

I like the IDEA of being able to call vendors out on peices of their advertising, but getting NAM to enforce it is quite another thing. Wouldn't that just fall back on Mark saying how he doesn't want to interfere with paying vendors? Plus, with their lack of presence on this board do you really expect anyone at PU to step up? Obviously they'd do good to hire a writer to write their ads and correspondence because whoever is currently doing it has the reading/writing comprehension of a 5th grader in remedial english. But that still won't change the ********, just that quality of the ********.

Plus, how would you expect PU to really prove that their stubby antenna for $60 gets better radio reception, and is of higher quality than say, my stubby antenna that I bought on ebay for $9? We've seen it before- anyone can "prove" their product works with a dyno sheet, or some other type of statistic. It still won't change the fact that gullible customers will buy into it.

 

And it's those gullible NAM customers Mark should be concerned about. PU offers a NAM discount, so Mark should do something about their presence on NAM.

Let's not turn this into a thread of how is Mark going to determine what other vendors are doing. He should be well aware of the business practices of PU by this time. As posted before, there is plenty of evidence of not only exaggerated claims, but of out right lies, for most of their products. I know of no other vendor with this kind of history.