Hello Jack, You said: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Your recent posting is making me smile. I'm begining to notice a pattern that you introduce some words in your reply that may distort the original message. For example, you used the word jousting in more than one occasion and you feel it necessary to explain something that doesn't need explaning in this topic. Can we stay focused a little closer on the topic?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factual reply: 1 - a "pattern" is something that is repeated over and over again, 2 - to you "some words" may distort, to others they may clarify, 3 - "more than one" could be two, which it was from memory, 4 - all the topics go off thread without my express detouring, 5 - focussing on the topic pertains to all. Finally, Jack, I have saved the best for last - your first sentence: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your recent posting is making me smile. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm glad of that. Gary Simpson

Hi Jack; you said: ======================================== Having read the article again I find it as a good litmus test for evaluating some opportunities that are often presented here by AdLandPro members. ======================================== I would agree. : ) Linda

Hey Peter, You wrote: There was a fellow a few years ago that proved how easy it was to get a Merchant Account in the US over any other country. He actually got his DOG his own merchant account. That's hilarious man. I wonder if the pay to address was something like Fido Inc. You're so right about the willingness of Paypal and Ebay. I'm sure ebay would gladly accept bids for a kidney if they could get away with it. It's sort of scary thinking about the slacked policies here in the U.S. As for the terms and agreements, I don't doubt that they are extremely strict and complex. But, the way I read the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, basically ANY network marketing/mlm company would not be acceptible by their terms and risk the possibility of account cancellation. So, when using their terms to judge whether or not one type of MLM company or payment plan is better than another, one might as well steer clear of MLM altogether. Or, at least they should not consider any company that allows direct payments through PayPal. Honestly, as an affiliate, I like the idea of being able to receive a random payment. I wish MORE affiliate programs were set up this way. I DON'T like the idea of selling the get rich quick idea or the graphic illustrations of payment notifications plastered on every randomizer site. Also, shouldn't they at least offer some type of service to those who choose to pay for a membership as well? Lingo

Hi Lingo, basically ANY network marketing/mlm company would not be acceptible by their terms and risk the possibility of account cancellation. Statements as broad as this are the easy way out for them and who can blame them. There is always those that when they see the loop hole will explote it for all they can, "Give a person an inch and they will take a mile", sounds like it fits here. They know that there would be a handful of people that would go to the extreme, when you measure the number of Pay Pal users. So rather than point fingers and have people say, "Hey your not being fair to this group or that group". They ban everyone from doing it. No need to decide if one person is in violation and another not. If you do it, you are, end of discussion. I don't mind as it has no effect on my abilities to use the servcie as I am not into randomizers, autosurfers or any other scheme or MLM. In over ten years on-line I have seen no need to be.

Excellent points Peter, Oh and before I forget - thanks for those nice comments way down in the thread. I did appreciate them. I agree with you. General terms are easier for Paypal to manouever within. I'll give you an example: Recently the Australian Federal Parliament rushed legislation through to counter some suspected terrorist activity over here. See if you can see the difference: OLD version "... prevent a person from making the terrorist attack..." NEW version "... prevent a person from making a terrorist attack..." As a result of a single word change 19 suspected terrorists were arrested. Same sort of thing. Like I said elsewhere in this thread (or another) - it's all in the words. Heh. Lingo - "Fido Inc" - very amusing. Gary Simpson