wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it.  am I reading you wrongly?

I think you read it incorrectly.  ??

Here is what I said:

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

Quote from: jamirae on December 07, 2010, 15:06

wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it.  am I reading you wrongly?

I think you read it incorrectly.  ??

Here is what I said:

Quote

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

okay.. I reread it again.. for like the 18th time.. and I apparently missed the "NOT" in the first part where you said "I am NOT willing to believe what rogermexico says...."  duh.  makes sense now.  I thought that was your position but my misreading had me all confused.   I guess my ADD was hampering my reading ability.

okay.. I reread it again.. for like the 18th time.. and I apparently missed the "NOT" in the first part where you said "I am NOT willing to believe what rogermexico says...."  duh.  makes sense now.  I thought that was your position but my misreading had me all confused.   I guess my ADD was hampering my reading ability.

No problem, I thought that's what might have happened. Or that you thought the other quote and my quote were all one big quote. No, I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same wavelength on all of this!

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 16:31

Quote from: jen on December 07, 2010, 16:19

Quote from: lisafx on December 07, 2010, 15:14

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 15:08

Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?

Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said. 

Isn't that how it works? 

Guess I should've tried that on my university professors for essay assignments.  "Sorry, the obligation is on you to find sources disproving what I said!"  

Mr BaldricksTrousers put out mis-information and has no obigation to link to it. I quote RM statement and you're still asking me for a source?

So far, it hasn't been determined that Mr. Baldricks Trousers DID put out misinformation, hence people asking ANYONE to find a link to the original source, so we ALL can reread and understand what exactly was said.

Here you go it took all of about 2 mins to find it http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522
Kelly's statement from Fri Sep 10

"As I've said, we will re-examine targets once the year-end numbers are in, especially if our projections prove wrong. In the meantime, we are going to have to wait and see, and we ask you to do the same, if not with understanding, then at least with patience."

Now can someone link to an announcement stating "some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment" The talk about grandfathering was the plan before the Sep announcement. It has nothing to do with what we'll be dealing with come Jan 2011. 

^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.

@ Will.....+1 on all your posts

^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.

Sorry, but HUH?   Was that directed at me?  Let what go?  

Snarky comment edited out with apologies 

There is no way these extra RC's for the final 3 weeks of the year, will compensate for the losses of many Vetta contributors since the September price increase. Vetta sales have been way, way down. Quite a few people will miss their target, I'm sure, due to that price increase. The extra RC's will not make up the difference.

If you're not within 2000-4000 RC of making the zone I'd bet you won't make it. And the number of Vetta anyone will sell within the 11-14 days won't be making up the those types of numbers.

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 17:04

^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.

Sorry, but HUH?   Was that directed at me?  Let what go?  

Have you been elected forum moderator and I missed the announcement?  

no, it wasn't posted at you. you happened to post while I was typing. that's why I edited it to include three ^^^

Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.

translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 07, 2010, 09:50

In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.

Actually, this is different from Kelly's statement about moving the levels.  As I remember, there was a post about considering people who were close, separate from "we don't have enough people in X category".

I thought that had something to do with the canister level announcement not the redeemed credits.  perhaps the two are being confused?  Although I don't recall anything about "secret payment percentage levels."  

no, it wasn't posted at you. you happened to post while I was typing. that's why I edited it to include three ^^^

Apologies. I misunderstood. Not the first thing I seem to have misunderstood today.   Emotions running high over all this stuff.  

What I really could use is a stiff belt of (spiked) eggnog