Lee: first of all, thank you very much for doing what it took. As Roger suggested it did take far too long.
These complaints have gone back to 2006, but people chose to ignore, for what ever reason.
I sent two emails to Scott Ard Editor-in-Chief, several to your admin by the name of Pauline and one to yourself on a follow-up to one of your weekly editorials
Special note to CNET: We here, all your users, are also your customers by virtue of your advertising. You must realize that if we feel we've been bitten or stung by one product line as a result of advertising and many, many, many, many people have lodged complaints then there must be some truth to the issue. Too many tidbits of information came to the surface that proved beyond that this product was a fraud and yet since 2006, CNET kept advertising even after all your contacts were made.
So, we asked why should we trust any of your other advertising????
Freedom of speech is great but when a product is being torn apart like the posters here did, would it not be prudent to investigate the claims to protect everyone's interest?
It seems that your actions have proven that we are right and CNET would not remove advertising without good reason. While we have won this battle but the war continues to rid coruptness as best we can.
To my fellow posters:
This issue was nagging me from the start. I had no concern about getting that $40.00 back and would rather that money go to a food bank. But to prevent more people from being ripped off is like having a newly proposed law passed.
You can do anything if you stick to it and believe in YOUR processs
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)