Most people would know, but according to many in YTB, there is no difference. This month's Inc. magazine mentions YTB in a "column" called "Ask Candee" and lists YTB as a "Leading Travel Franchise Opportunity". Several message boards have been gloating about it and even the blog Just Picture It Now, devoted some space for it. As is typical, you can only believe half of what is said.
We will not even go into the whole, YTB is not a franchise argument; but will focus on the fact that the "article" is merely an ad. YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them
Inc. had nothing to do with the article beyond accepting a check from the advertiser that placed it. It says on the top of the page "SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION". So, again, YTB has paid for a mention that they likely did not deserve. Don't believe me? Check it out online for yourself, or buy a copy of the magazine.
The company that places these ads is called VentureDirect, and here is what they have to say:
VentureDirect Worldwide provides premium print advertising opportunities, in a range of industries and interest categories. We exclusively manage the Direct Response, Marketplace and Special Advertising sections in some of the United States's premiere publications. Long-standing relationships with more than 600 national magazines and newspapers provide unique targeted, cost-effective advertising opportunities that deliver the right audience, at the right price for our clients. Major advertisers in industries such as distance education, fitness and nutrition, health and beauty, fine jewelry, travel, franchises, technology products and services, small and home-based business services, computer software and hardware have all utilized our service.
Our print brokerage experts analyze the market and your message, to identify the best publications for your product or service – procuring the best possible rate and position in each publication. As the broker for hundreds of print advertisers, we are able to leverage our buying power with publishers to secure much lower rates - sometimes as much as 70% below rate card. We also identify remnant space, and negotiate added-value items that can complement your print campaign. Added-value items may include free or reduced pricing on subscriber mailing list usage, supplemental online ad components and editorial mentions.
Over twenty years of print media experience ensures exceptional value, strategic positioning and guaranteed placement.
P.I.O.T.B. here. It's pretty pathetic and deceitful when the only good P.R. out on the net and out for the public to see is P.R. that you have to purchase just like the SEP debacle isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf one searches the net for months and months, what positive and meaningful P.R. is there for YTB really?? There are the Press Releases, done by RSS feeds from P.R.News Wire which YTB has an account with and which YTB writes themselves and then has News Wire Publish for them, the drivel (mostly recruiting) of the die hard YTBers on their blogs and websites and forums, and then the paid for ads like this one and the SEP that YTB has to purchase to tout themselves with. Oh, and then there are the various other sleezy MLM marketing plans that try to sell their "plans" to YTBers all over the net where they attempt to solicit and sell YTBers their "plan" to use for their YTB "business".
On the opposite side of the fence however, the negative press and info regarding the truth of YTB is everywhere and plentiful.
Where is the legit support from the media or from any legit Travel Industry entity???? And let's not go into TW and their inane worthless Power List, which is a joke and meaningless. Everything that I can find on the net regarding YTB is negative except from the YTBers and YTB itself. I have even seen many die hard pro MLM enities publishing very negative articles about YTB this year. It's interesting when even many in the MLM business shun YTB for the pariah that it is.
That alone should tell anyone something about how great YTB is.
John,
ReplyDeleteIt may be an ad, but you have a glaring inaccuracy in your blog post today! (no surprise) You said YTB paid for the ad. The ad was for CruiseOne and YOU know it. But, it wouldn't fit your story today if you told the truth.
So, with that said, the point is is that someone else views YTB as a good opportunity. Whether it is Inc magazine or Cruise one, or the author of the ad. Those 3 entities are NOT affiliated with YTB yet view it as a good opportunity. IN fact top ten.
Josh, how do you come to the conclusion that CruiseOne is the SOLE entity that paid for the ad placement?
ReplyDeleteP.I.O.T.B.here So a Franchise business pays for an ad for YTB and that makes it legit somehow???? Does Cruise One not even realize that YTB is NOT a franchise then??? lol
ReplyDeleteI have noticed also, that YTB is last on the "list", yet when the YTBers put it up on their sites they change the order and put YTB at the top of the list in first place. The Old Fart has taught them well.
Josh, John knows this and it was pointed out to him on Doug's blog.
ReplyDeleteHow freaking hard is it to understand the difference between paid advertising and someone else writing an article about you? The fact that they are trying to spin this as a paid endorsement just goes to show how desperate they really are. Doug has really shot his credibility with this one.
ReplyDelete"
ReplyDeleteI have noticed also, that YTB is last on the "list", yet when the YTBers put it up on their sites they change the order and put YTB at the top of the list in first place. The Old Fart has taught them well."
Dude, it's called "alphabetical order".
"Where is the legit support from the media or from any legit Travel Industry entity???? And let's not go into TW and their inane worthless Power List, which is a joke and meaningless. Everything that I can find on the net regarding YTB is negative except from the YTBers and YTB itself. I have even seen many die hard pro MLM enities publishing very negative articles about YTB this year. It's interesting when even many in the MLM business shun YTB for the pariah that it is."
So PIOTB are you saying that TW is a "joke" and "meaningless"? They posted objective information and you are calling them "inane"? Are you serious? John, do you agree with PIOTB?
And as far as other travel mlms posting negative ads: are you for real PIOTB? It's called competition and it's not that hard to figure out. Do you really believe half of the stuff you say? And do you realize that the posse here believes that the other mlms are "pariahs"?
I meant ended with Z of course...
ReplyDeleteUm, when I went to school the alphabet started with A and ended with Y. Does YTB have it's own special alphabet that starts with Y that allows them to list their company first?
ReplyDeleteKate, I am talking about the original article. If someone else changed to order then, whatever. I was addressing PIOTB's statement about it being "last" on the list.
ReplyDeleteP.I.O.T.B. here. Again, FM you have severe reading and comprehension skills. I never said TRAVEL MLMs did I??? Those are your words. If I wanted to state travel MLMs I would have. Any idiot would not count other Travel MLMs putting out negative press about YTB (and I certainly did not) because they are in competition....duh!Quit the spinning already, you are making everyone dizzy with your b.s. I said MLMs and I meant MLMs and NO not ANY TRAVEL MLMs either. sheeesh!
ReplyDeleteAnd DUDE, YTBers are still listing YTB at the top of the list (which is again misleading) when the list was not originally published that way! LMAO!!!
P.I.O.T.B.here. And DUDE, lol, here is how, for one example, (and there are several out on the net) that one YTBer (TravelingLady) posted the list on Scam the other day:
ReplyDeleteCandee's Picks
Leading Travel Franchise Opportunities
Your Travel Biz
Uniglobe Travel International
The Travel Academy
Passport Health Communications
Microtel Inn Hotel Indigo
Discovery Map International
CruiseOne inc Choice Hotels
Carlson Wagonlit Travel
"And DUDE, YTBers are still listing YTB at the top of the list (which is again misleading) when the list was not originally published that way! LMAO!!!"
ReplyDeleteIf the original list was in alphabetical order then could one assume that it means there was not particular numerical order is the first place? And if that is the case then how would it be misleading for someone to post YTB as the first on the list when they publish it?
You are right about the comment about "travel mlm's" PIOTB. But many in the MLM industry do compete against each other even if it's not the same product. It's still no surprise whether or not it's travel or vitamins or whatever else.
This is just another article with inaccurate information in it that ytb is yet a part of. Will ytb EVER be a part of anything that is accurate?
ReplyDeleteP.I.O.T.B.here That's the problem with you FM. You cannot for one moment perceive anything that YTB or it's members do as dishonest and misleading. It's all just hunky dory in your eyes. Whatever works for YTB and it's members is fine. You see no problem with a PAID FOR AD not being a true endorsement for YTB and see no issue in YTBers changing the order of the list to place YTB at the top of the list. How are the waters on the River of Denial this morning?
ReplyDeleteJOhn again posted facts!!!
ReplyDeleteHe said "YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them"
The only true statement in there is that INC has not formally endorsed YTB.
I have not found any statement anywhere that INC doesn't approve of YTB.
I am sure John had a phone conversation with some anonymous person who once worked at a coffe shop where the former janitor in the building that INc magazine used to be bought his danish from.
Also, again I repeat YTB DID NOT PAY FOR THE AD. If anyone did it is evident that it was Cruise One. So, it is fair to say that Cruise One ( a legitimate cruise franchise(in the eyes of many here) where it costs 10k to get on board) believes that YTB is a viable option for travel. Now, if JOhn has proof; and he needs to be the one to provide it, since HE posted it is HIS blog, then he should provide the proof thatYTB paid for the ad. If not/......then he should put a correction on his blog.
"where it costs 10k to get on board"
ReplyDeleteExperienced travel agents can get on board for much much less than that.
Joe from Cruise One's website.
ReplyDeleteI picked a number in the middle but toward the low end of the range...
Q - Can you estimate the total start-up cost associated with a CruiseOne?
A - CruiseOne's estimated start-up cost is between $4,575 and $26,165.
PIOTB - I can say the same thing about your posts. To me it seems that NOTHING YTB does be honest. Again, the order of the list has already been refuted. There was not order and the order you posted was still in order only backwards. If the original order was not meant to indicate value then the order does not matter.
ReplyDeleteCruise One paid for the "advertisement". Not YTB. I agree with Josh in that John should prove that YTB paid for it since he made the claim.
Umm - so John should know better about who paid for the ad because it's posted on Dougs blog? So Doug knows? HAHAHA. Doug wishes he knew maybe like many of his 'facts' are wishes when YTB is concerned. It's called spin. I have no trouble believing that YTB forked over some $$$ for good publicity. Who wouldn't when one is trying to dave their scheme?
ReplyDeleteJoe is correct. The franchise rate (YTB is NOT a franchise) can be less than 4 grand if an experienced cruise seller whishes to join. I believe gross sales needs to be proven. Maybe Denyse could qualify for CruiseOne but I venture she may be the only YTBer that does.
ReplyDeleteCruiseOne is a respected name in the cruise and travel world. YTB is not so obviously they cannot command such a price.
"Umm - so John should know better about who paid for the ad "
ReplyDeleteEddie, if YTB posted something that said that John paid for someone that mentioned his name in a paid advertisement do you think for a moment that you and the posse would not want proof? You would be all over it but on here there is the double standard. John said that YTB paid for it and so he should prove it or correct his post. Doubt he will do either.
firemedic said... agree with Josh in that John should prove that YTB paid for it
ReplyDeleteBoy, you sure do demand alot of proof without ever offering any of your own when asked for it.
"firemedic said... agree with Josh in that John should prove that YTB paid for it
ReplyDeleteBoy, you sure do demand alot of proof without ever offering any of your own when asked for it."
Is the issue about the John's claim that YTB paid for the advertisement or is it about me PIOTB? But that seems to be your MO.
Fireman - if you want to prove that YTB did not pay for the ad, then please do so. I think they paid for SOME of the cost, in order to be mentioned. That's usually how it works. Doug says that YTB did not pay, you say Doug is right. How does Doug know who paid what?
ReplyDeleteEddie,
ReplyDeleteHere is the problem. JOHN made a claim. We believe it not to be true. The ONUS is on HIM to prove his claim. Not US to prove it not to be true.
If you told me you saw an elephant walking by your house this morning I would have 2 options, either simply believe you because you are credible or ask you to prove it to me (maybe you took a picture for example)
It would be impossible for me to prove that it didn't happen.
Nope, I do not agree. This is a blog not a court room. You prove who paid how much. Ask Doug, altho his opinion will not be accepted as fact.
ReplyDeleteHey, Eddie....even if this WERE a courtroom, the ONUS would still be on FM and Josh to prove their point. They made an accusation of wrong doing on John's part. They would be the "plaintiff", this blog the "defendent". It is up to the "plaintiff" to make a prima facia case. In otherwords, to offer up proof of wrong doing.
ReplyDeleteNice to know that you don't need credibility from the blogs that you visit. I agree it isn't a courtroom but when something is stated as FACT it should be sourced. True this blog is John's opinion and he is entitled to it. But, he crosses the line by making his opinions SEEM factual. He even used the word FACT in the blog today to make the case.
ReplyDeleteCruise One's pricing can be even lower than $1k if you are a very experienced professional and don't need a week of training.
ReplyDeleteThe $4k number helps pay for training.
So it's okay for Dougie to post something, as his opinion, and make it seem factual? Talk about being hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it was only stated as FACT that the "article" in question was an advertisement, as evidenced by the words "SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION" at the top of the page. Nothing more.
I just called Venture Direct and after speaking to a few people, I was connected to Kathy. She told me that Cruise One paid for the ad.
ReplyDeleteJosh said...
ReplyDeleteI just called Venture Direct and after speaking to a few people, I was connected to Kathy. She told me that Cruise One paid for the ad.
Did you also question her about the blatent, inaccurate information in the article?
I believe Josh to be right. It does not matter what Josh or I's opinion is. That is not the issue. The issue is that the topic today says that YTB paid for the advertisement. It shouldn't matter which side of the issue you are on but if John is going to say that then he should provide facts supporting that. John has said in the past that he doesn't make up anything and that everything he posts is supported by facts with opinion thrown in there.
ReplyDelete"YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them."
That is not stated as an opinion. It is stated as fact. Where is John's proof supporting that statement?
Okay - Cruise One paid for it and Cruise One and Candee do not know that YTB is not a franchise. Thank you for finding that out.
ReplyDelete"Did you also question her about the blatent, inaccurate information in the article?"
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you call her Ainsworth?
but will focus on the fact that the "article" is merely an ad. YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them
ReplyDeleteThat is the quote from John's post.
Josh why on earth would INC publish something stating that they don't approve of YTB? That doesn't make any sense and is hardly a valid argument. Do you know who does approve of YTB? YTB does! And that's about it.
ReplyDeleteHe believes it to be true. You have accused him of lying. Prove the lie.
ReplyDeleteJosh said...
ReplyDeletebut will focus on the fact that the "article" is merely an ad. YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them
That is the quote from John's post.
And there is your answer, Josh. The only thing that the word FACT is attached to is the sentence "....but will focus on the FACT that the "article" is merely an ad." Where else is the word FACT used in relation to anything?
firemedic said...
"Did you also question her about the blatent, inaccurate information in the article?"
Why don't you call her Ainsworth?
Why should I, FM? Josh already did. Yet, he evidently didn't take the time, or didn't want to take the time, to verify everything that is incorrect about the article. Why is that?
Eddie, Spin it all you want. Point is. John posted something that wasn't true. And Anon, thanks for joining the party a bit late, but I made the phone call. With respect to asking Kathy other questions....I was asked to prove the FACT that John was lying about YTB paying for it. I am not an investigative reporter on all of your issues. I did my part,,,,now John needs to correct his post from today.
ReplyDeleteTo add to the above......I already know what the innacuracy is, FM. Do you?
ReplyDeleteWell well well Ainsworth....If I recall it was YOU that made a point regarding the new YTB video's claim tabout 2007 sales at 414 million. YOU stated that the video said that because it said from websites in 2006, that it meant the same for 2007. When someone came on and said that websites was never mentinoed for 2007 YOU had issue with that. So, picking apart only when it suits your case???
ReplyDelete"He believes it to be true. You have accused him of lying. Prove the lie."
ReplyDeleteNo one said John was lying. John is being asked to prove his statement of "YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them." If he can provide objective data for that statement then he would be telling the truth. Why is that too much to ask? Just like Josh said. I could say that I saw an elephant outside my door today and it would be ridiculous for me to ask you to prove I didn't.
Josh said...
ReplyDeleteWell well well Ainsworth....If I recall it was YOU that made a point regarding the new YTB video's claim tabout 2007 sales at 414 million. YOU stated that the video said that because it said from websites in 2006, that it meant the same for 2007. When someone came on and said that websites was never mentinoed for 2007 YOU had issue with that. So, picking apart only when it suits your case???
Twasn't me. Can you point out where I supposedly said this?
You are right Josh. There is such a double standard here.
ReplyDeleteFM, it all comes down to semantics, but in Josh's first post today, he accuses John of lying. So, again.......prove the lie.
ReplyDeletefiremedic said...
ReplyDeleteYou are right Josh. There is such a double standard here.
And there isn't blatent censoring and double standards on your own blog or on Dougie's blog? Again with they hypocritical statements!
"FM, it all comes down to semantics, but in Josh's first post today, he accuses John of lying. So, again.......prove the lie."
ReplyDeleteAinsworth, John said "YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them." It was easy to assume (and verified by Josh by making a phone call) that Cruise One paid for the ad. But John goes above and beyond by making the above statement without providing any objective proof. John made the statement therefore it is not the responsibility of anyone else to provide the proof for him.
As I said before John should provide proof for the above statement or correct his blog. And again, I doubt he will do either.
FM, it's easy to assume lots of things. I can't control what you assume, that's on you. Again, in Josh's first post of today, he does what basically comes down to calling John a liar. You have supported him in that position. Prove the lie.
ReplyDeleteIt also still is amazing to me that even though this "article" (advertisement) has blatent inaccuracies in it, the ytb group is touting it as being something positive for them. I wouldn't want my company associated with an "article" that was inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteAinsworth said "Twasn't me. Can you point out where I supposedly said this?"
ReplyDeleteI love it!!!
SHouldn't you prove to me that YOU DIDN"T say it. After all YOU are accusing me of saying something that isn't true.
And the point is, Ainsworth shouldn't have to prove it. I went back and realize that it wasn't ainsworth who said that. I stand corrected as I should be held accountable for what I say. I apologize to Ainsworth.
ReplyDeleteThe statement itself was stated in the comments about that video but not by Ainsworth.
Ainsworth, I don't see anywhere where anyone is calling him a "liar". Again, John made the comment and he should be able to back it up with some kind of objective information proving it. You and I both know that probably won't happen. I support Josh in asking that John provide objective information cooberating his statement that "YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them." That is the issue. Not my opinion, your opinion, Josh's opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhat if I had posted today that "John has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses him or approves of him." Yet I have not provided any proof of that statement. Would you take it as fact? Or would you ask to either provide proof or change the post?
And the point is, I KNEW that I didn't make the aforementioned statement, and I wanted to show that ytbers will say whatever they want, to try and discredit someone, to try to further their agenda, thinking that no one will ever call them on it. I wanted to show that Josh is, basically, a liar. He said something thinking no one would call him out. I did, and he got caught.
ReplyDeleteFM, as I said, it comes down to semantics, but when Josh starts talking about "if you told the truth", that's tantamount to calling someone a liar. Your reading comprehension skills are lacking, yet again. In what John wrote, he never used the word FACT in connection with the statement that ytb paid for anything. He said that it was a FACT that the "article" was nothing more than an advertisement. After that, he stated something that appears to be his opinion. The difference between that and what Josh stated about me is that Josh is making an avowed statement.
There is also still the FACT that the "article" is inaccurate, and still the FACT that the ytb minions are touting it as a plus for them. Why would anyone want an inaccurate article to be a plus for them?
Ainsworth, I am not a liar. I made an error. You pointed it out and I politely apologized. It was said in a comment immediately following a long comment that you made. I made a simple error that I noticed when I went back to try to prove it. I wasn't lying.
ReplyDeleteThe point is is that John needs to do the same.
OK, I'll allow that you made an "error". And you only "politely apologized" after you were caught in said error.
ReplyDeleteThe FACT is, you're stuck on the word "fact".
The FACT is, John only used the word "fact" in the sentence that the "article" is an advertisement. He never stated that it was fact that ytb paid for anything. He stated an opinion.
The FACT is, in your first post of today, you made a statement that was tantamount to calling him a liar, yet you cannot or will not prove the lie.
The FACT is, the "article" is inaccurate, yet you seem not to care.
There are many FACTS out there, yet you only seem interested in an opinion.
Ainsworth, you stepped all over your tongue with your above post. The only side making any claims of lying or using the word "liar" is yours. Just like Josh said, he made an error. If John made an error then he has an opportunity to correct it. Or we could use your argument your side "will say whatever they want, to try and discredit someone, to try to further their agenda, thinking that no one will ever call them on it."
ReplyDeleteBut once again you resort to attacking the person instead of the issues by calling the people that have a differing opinion as a "liar" and having "reading comprehension" problems. Even if that were the case (and it's not an objective opinion) what does that have to do with John's statement that YTB paid for the ad? John didn't say "It seems like YTB paid....." He said it as a "matter of fact" statement Ainsworth.
Ainsworth, you seem to have a serious comprehension as to what a fact is. You yourself use the word "fact" in the same sentence as you said Josh was "stuck on the word "fact"". How do you prove that anyone is "stuck" on anything" Being "stuck on" something is an opinion. It's not objective. I could go on and on about your post what's the use. John made a matter-of-fact statement. Not an opinion statement.
ReplyDeleteI say it again Ainsworth. What if I had posted today that "John has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses him or approves of him." Yet I have not provided any objective proof of that statement. Would you take it as fact? Or would you ask me to either provide proof or change the post?
ReplyDeleteI am betting I would be called a "liar" for making that statement.
If you took it as a "matter of fact" statement, FM, that's on you. How you read something is how YOU read something, not how everyone else reads it.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to me, Josh made an avowed statement:
"Josh said...
Well well well Ainsworth....If I recall it was YOU that made a point regarding the new YTB video's claim tabout 2007 sales at 414 million. YOU stated that the video said that because it said from websites in 2006, that it meant the same for 2007. When someone came on and said that websites was never mentinoed for 2007 YOU had issue with that. So, picking apart only when it suits your case?"
I see nowhere in today's blog entry that John stated it was FACT that ytb paid for anything. Why is it that John must qualify everything, yet on every pro-ytb blog, nothing has to be qualified as opinion?
Josh did in fact attribute a statement to me that I did not make. Yes, I called him out on it, calling him a liar. What he stated, he stated as a "matter of fact", to use your phraseology. He calls it an "error", so I allowed him that "error". He did not state it as opinion. He stated it as fact. See the difference?
FM, if you will go back and read all of my comments, I tried to keep todays comments on topic. Only when I was attacked first, by someone on YOUR side, did I retaliate in kind. Yet, as many times as I have tried to steer the conversation back onto topic, you and Josh keep steering it off topic. Now, why is that? Let's go over it once again:
The FACT is, you're stuck on the word "fact".
The FACT is, John only used the word "fact" in the sentence that the "article" is an advertisement. He never stated that it was fact that ytb paid for anything. He stated an opinion.
The FACT is, in your first post of today, you made a statement that was tantamount to calling him a liar, yet you cannot or will not prove the lie.
The FACT is, the "article" is inaccurate, yet you seem not to care.
There are many FACTS out there, yet you only seem interested in an opinion.
Oh, and FM, as a former educator, I am sure that I AM qualified to make an objective opinion on your reading comprehension skills.
firemedic said...
ReplyDeleteI say it again Ainsworth. What if I had posted today that "John has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses him or approves of him." Yet I have not provided any objective proof of that statement. Would you take it as fact? Or would you ask me to either provide proof or change the post?
This is a moot point, because there is no such "article" that includes John out there presently, that John is using as a positive publicity piece.
firemedic said...
ReplyDeleteAinsworth, you seem to have a serious comprehension as to what a fact is. You yourself use the word "fact" in the same sentence as you said Josh was "stuck on the word "fact"".
Again, your reading comprehension comes into question. No where do I specify "Josh". You are reading something into what I wrote that isn't there, just as you're reading something into today's blog that isn't there.
Ainsworth, If you want to get picky, in my statement about you i did start with "if I recall" indicating that there is a possiblity that it MAY be inaccurate. You called attention to the FACT that you didn't say it. I went back and determined that you were, IN FACT, correct.
ReplyDeleteAlso, go back and read Ainsworth....in my first post today all I said was John had a glaring inaccuracy not stating anything about an INTENT to be inaccurate. Simply that my opinion was that there was an inaccuracy.
Ainsworth, if you are a former educator then you should know the difference between a "matter-of-fact" statement and an "opinion statement". But quite frankly, being and educator makes no difference when it comes to opinion. There is a big difference in what is taught and what is learned.
ReplyDeleteI ask again. If I stated in my blog that "John has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses him or approves of him." Yet I have not provided any objective proof of that statement. Would you take it as fact? Or would you ask me to either provide proof or change the post?
"If you took it as a "matter of fact" statement, FM, that's on you. How you read something is how YOU read something, not how everyone else reads it."
Funny how that is self refuting statement.
Ainsworth molests dogs
ReplyDeleteJosh, you also added the sentence "But, it wouldn't fit your story today if you told the truth.", which is just another way of saying it's a lie.
ReplyDeleteWe can go round and round, and nothing will change.
Why is it that neither of you will talk about the inaccuracies in the article? Is it because if you acknowledge 1 inaccuracy, then the whole "article" comes into question?
Anon, interesting OPINION
ReplyDeleteJohn, was your statement an opinion or a fact? And if it was an opinion are you willing to go on record and correct it like you did with the CLIA article where you accused YTB of paying off CLIA?
ReplyDeleteFM, what has John "placed"? What publication? It all comes down to specifics before your question can be answered.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you're just showing the average intelligence level of the average ytber.
"Josh, you also added the sentence "But, it wouldn't fit your story today if you told the truth.", which is just another way of saying it's a lie."
ReplyDeleteAinsworth did you not say "How you read something is how YOU read something, not how everyone else reads it."? Seems you are stepping all over yourself here.
"Why is it that neither of you will talk about the inaccuracies in the article? Is it because if you acknowledge 1 inaccuracy, then the whole "article" comes into question?"
ReplyDeleteThe article innaccuracies are not what the topic was about but with that said it would seem you are using the mindset of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater mentality" and that mentality is full of all kinds of holes.
I'm thinking 'who cares'? YTB is a sleazy MLM trying to put positive spin on an advertisement paid for by someone else. CruiseOne obviously does not know beans about YTB or they would not say they were a franchise. Candee obviously knows nothing about YTB or she would not have written that YTB is a franchise. Ergo - neither CruiseOne, the ad agency or Inc give a darn about YTB.
ReplyDelete"I'm thinking 'who cares'? YTB is a sleazy MLM trying to put positive spin on an advertisement paid for by someone else. CruiseOne obviously does not know beans about YTB or they would not say they were a franchise. Candee obviously knows nothing about YTB or she would not have written that YTB is a franchise. Ergo - neither CruiseOne, the ad agency or Inc give a darn about YTB."
ReplyDeleteIs that a fact or an opinion eddie? lol.
FM, evidently I'm not the only one who read it the way I did, I'm just the only one stupid enough to still be here arguing with you about it, which I am about to stop doing, because I have other things to do, and there comes a time when one must stop banging their head against the brick wall.
ReplyDeleteJohn, was your statement an opinion or a fact? And if it was an opinion are you willing to go on record and correct it like you did with the CLIA article where you accused YTB of paying off CLIA?
ReplyDeleteFM, not really. If there is one thing blatently wrong with the "article", then how many other things are wrong with it, and why do you want your company associated with a suspect article?
ReplyDelete"FM, not really. If there is one thing blatently wrong with the "article", then how many other things are wrong with it, and why do you want your company associated with a suspect article?"
ReplyDeleteMake your case Ainsworth even though it's off topic.
By the way, on the page in the magazine in question, there is another ad for getting involved with cruise one where it states "LOW $9,800 start up fee"
ReplyDeleteSleazy--(from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) ADJECTIVE: Thin and loosely woven; flimsy
ReplyDeleteMLM--Multi Level Marketing
Since ytb fits both, I would have to say that what Eddie has said is FACT!
firemedic said...
ReplyDelete"FM, not really. If there is one thing blatently wrong with the "article", then how many other things are wrong with it, and why do you want your company associated with a suspect article?"
Make your case Ainsworth even though it's off topic.
Well, the "article" is about travel companies that franchise. There are companies in the list that don't franchise. Therefore, the "article" is flawed.
Fireman - you have pull with YTB - get them to go forward on the franchise model and we can stop going back and forth about this article/advertisement.
ReplyDeleteThe point is...
ReplyDeleteThe article was not written about YTB, in fact it's not even an article its a paid advertisement..doesn't matter by who.
The second fact is that YTB is not a franchise.
The third fact is that SOME YTBers are throwing this around like it should mean anything, which it doesn't. Nor is their name first on the list like i've seen.
No matter how you say it, what you say, doesn't make the facts any different. Its not an article..its a PAID FOR ADVERTISEMENT. Obviously Candee knows nothing about the travel industry or YTB or they wouldn't be on the franchise list with the other companies. End of story!
Okay Ainsworth, if we use your philosophy in that if one thing is wrong then the whole article is, then can we apply it to John's article then? If his statement is wrong then shouldn't his whole article/post be thrown out?
ReplyDeleteI am guessing you answer is "no" since it seems to fit your view of YTB.
John, was your statement an opinion or a fact? And if it was an opinion are you willing to go on record and correct it like you did with the CLIA article where you accused YTB of paying off CLIA?
ReplyDeleteOpinion or fact - who cares about that either.
ReplyDeleteIt's just very amusing to see all the YTBers who thought and said 'Finally, someone named Candee has given us validation in an article published in INC magazine.'
Fact - it was an advertisement paid for by a company that hasn't got a clue who or what YTB is.
Fact - Candee who who doesn't know who YTB is either.
Fact - YTBers are once again beholden to defend their company because they jumped to conclusions.
Ya know guys - Coach isn't liking this one little bit. I called HQ and asked and got right thru! That is not a fact.
Hey firemedic and Josh if Coach told you to jump off a cliff would you? LOL!
ReplyDeleteFiremedic
ReplyDeleteJohn is on a cruise, this post was scheduled..hes not going to answer you anytime soon.
FM, first of all, there is more than one thing wrong with the "article", things that can be proven to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteSecond, in todays blog post, I would venture to say an opinion was given, and until it is proven to be incorrect, an opinion is not wrong. Now, if you can prove that John's opinion is wrong, then we'll talk, but until then...........
Firemedic, I just have one question for you. It's simple, it only requires a direct answer of yes or no. Do you EVER work?
ReplyDelete"and until it is proven to be incorrect, an opinion is not wrong."
ReplyDeleteSo my opinion that YTB is not "sleazy" and not a "scam" in right then?
P.I.O.T.B. here. "firemedic said... agree with Josh in that John should prove that YTB paid for it"
ReplyDelete"Boy, you sure do demand alot of proof without ever offering any of your own when asked for it."
Is the issue about the John's claim that YTB paid for the advertisement or is it about me PIOTB? But that seems to be your MO."
THAT comment was not from me numbnuts, we left home at 8:30 am and just returned home at 5pm. I always state that it's me on here. Again, you assume much and lie as usual. That's YOUR MO! ROTFL!!
P.I.O.T.B.here No Moron Here said...
ReplyDelete"Firemedic, I just have one question for you. It's simple, it only requires a direct answer of yes or no. Do you EVER work?" ROTFL!! He has no job, much like Doug. He spends his entire life 24/7 on blogs posting about YTB. That apparently is his worthless little life. Sad huh? He's a phony, a liar and a complete fraud. That's pretty much obvious to everyone by now.
"THAT comment was not from me numbnuts, we left home at 8:30 am and just returned home at 5pm. I always state that it's me on here. Again, you assume much and lie as usual. That's YOUR MO! ROTFL!!"
ReplyDeleteSo all those comments around 11:30 or so aren't yours even though it says PIOTB?
PIOTB, you act like a real big man on a blog. It's pretty obvious to everyone on here what you are about too.
ReplyDeleteP.I.O.T.B.here Listen dumbass, I am on the West Coast, in So. California. We left home around 8:30 am because we arrived down the road to Big Rec Golf Links shortly before 9am as we had a 9:30am tee time and we wanted to whack a few balls from the driving range and grab some coffee. I can only guess that the blog timer is set to Eastern Time??? I don't know. But it is curently 5:21pm in California and when I posted above just after 5pm, it states the time as 8:08 pm so that is a three hour difference. Cripes....how pathetic and desperate are you??? ROTFL!!!!
ReplyDeleteSo what's your story PIOTB/night owl? People that mouth off like you do are generally that mouthy because they are trying to make up for somewhere else in their life they feel inadequate. What's your excuse?
ReplyDeleteOh and night owl, did you say that you had "just signed up"?
ReplyDeleteP.O.I.T.B. here I am actualy trying to get a google account but found that the Night Owl name which I used and I explained this to you already Fm, I made it and used it just once to post to John (the first time I ever posted on here, months ago) to wish him well when he injured his knee, is somehow tied to Blogger and I am trying to change it. I thought I had changed it to P.I.O.T.B. but it didn't work, so I am going to re-try to fix it. So you can quit your childish whinning now. P.S. It's 5:52 pm in California now. LMAO You really have no life do you pal? lol
ReplyDeleteSo why did you post as night owl PIOTB and then take it down and then turn off your profile? You posted as though you had just signed up but your profile said since December of 2007.
ReplyDeleteGeez oh pete's firemedic get a damn life and quit replying all day long.
ReplyDeleteYou are probably right about P.I.O.T.B. fm. His is probably some little ass short dude with some kind of terrets on top of shortman syndrome. Wonder if he is as much of a smartass in person. I would love to meet the jackass in person.
ReplyDeleteEasy Anon.
ReplyDeleteGot my account fixed. I see the YTB illuminati is out in full force, but then it is full moon. lol
ReplyDeleteYesterday's Statistics:
ReplyDeleteFiremedic-# of posts-32
Times posted:
10:59
11:07
11:15
11:27
11:47
11:59
12:03
12:51
12:53
1:02
1;04
1:12
1;26
2:06
2:13
2;15
2:39
2:44
2:46
2:49
2:51
2:52
2:53
3:40
3:43
8:03
8:18
8:20
8:38
8:39
8:55
9:03
PIOTB was right firemedic's life is this blog.
Oh, honorary mention goes to Josh with 15 posts.
How do you 2 find the time to sell travel and service your customers????
I posted 15 times in 4 hours. A post takes all of 10 seconds? Maybe 30? So, 7.5 minutes in 4 hours early yesterday is hardly spending a day.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Ainsworth had over 20 posts and some of them were very long. PIOTB had 12. But, even with that said, the number of posts, IMO, were high from both sides as the comments section were used more as a chat room format with constant back and forth. There were some instances where there were 10 comments in 10 minutes.
The point is Josh you dip that you and firemedic don't have a damn life. You are on here all day. And, the fact of the matter is you are wasting your time. You work for a scam company and you are not going to change anyone's thinking about YTB here. You just make yourselves look foolish and stupid.
ReplyDeleteAT, you are pleasant. I sprinkled in 15 comments over a 4 hour stretch and I am on all day? And the personal attack....nice.
ReplyDeleteJosh, you are so hypocritical. You whine when we call you names and then you fire back with more crap. Again, no one here cares what you say. You are not winning points here. You have no life that is obvious and you probably aren't making any money either. I have work to do I don't have time to play with a loser like you.
ReplyDeletefiremedic said...
ReplyDelete"and until it is proven to be incorrect, an opinion is not wrong."
So my opinion that YTB is not "sleazy" and not a "scam" in right then?
No, it is not correct, because by definition, ytb is both sleazy and a scam.
sleazy--(from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) ADJECTIVE: Thin and loosely woven; flimsy
scam--(from Dictionary.com) NOUN: a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for MAKING A QUICK PROFIT; swindle.
I only counted 10 times that I posted yesterday. 11 if you count the short test post of one sentence that I deleted while trying to change my account name over. What is sad, is that everyone is spending a lot of their posts answering, explaining and defending themselves to FM (whose behavior has become more Troll like with every post) because of the lies and ridiculous statements and personal insults that he makes to other posters on here.
ReplyDeleteI even had to explain the time zone difference to him last night. Then had to explain changing my name to fit my name on Scam. (which I decided to get an account after he accused me of stating something which I did not)Then I had to inform him that it was not me who made some comment that a anon poster had made and FM accused me of stating it and then insulted me.
I finally realized, why the heck am I bothering to do this with him? It's ridiculous. Out of a post I made in the morning yesterday, he picked out one sentence to start crap over and ignored the rest of the post which was my entire point. He brings little value to any discussion here, has made himself the focus of all the posters and spends his whole time attacking, lieing and insulting posters. He is on this blog and his own blog 24/7. He has no job obviously and no life. He posts 3 and 4 times more than anyone else on this blog. Hell, he has posted more than than 5 or 6 other posters put together. It's quite pathetic. I stand by my original statement that he is a liar and a phony.
I myself have fallen for his baiting crap now and I am going to try and resist doing that in the future. It's simply not worth it and really a waste of time and not why I came here. I prefer to banter with people who actually know what the hell they are talking about frankly and stop wasting my time defending myself to an idiot, whose only point in being here is to flame others and disrupt, and wreak havoc and chaos. I am just going to present what I know and believe and he can provoke someone else. I am done for the most part,(I may have a weak moment here and there but I hope not to) falling for his Trollness anymore. He is after all the Master Baiter! lol
You accuse fm of trolling PIOTB. Where the hell are from. You have a serious issue with three-finger disease. You know the disease that says that when you point a finger there is three pointing back at you? You have no idea how ridiculous you sound. Do you realize that people can see right through your rantings and ravings. Just about everything you accuse others of doing you are doing. What a joke. I would love to meet your sorry mouthy ass in person. I used to beat the crap out of mouthy asses like you when they asked for it like you do. I think fm is right and you come on places like this and scam to make up for something you lack in your personal life. If you think that this part of your life doesn't show up in other parts of your life then you are the idiot.
ReplyDeleteOoooooh, a threat from someone named "anonymous". Typical ytb behavior. Can't even be imaginative and come up with some kind of screen name. Also saying the same tired things that every tired ytber says. It actually sounds alot like the things that FM says.
ReplyDeletePIOTB, you hit the nail on the head. I'm going to try to take your advice to heart, and ignore people like FM and Josh. There are just some people that no matter how much you try, they will always be short bus material.
There goes the neighborhood!
ReplyDeleteAnon don't play their games and certainly don't get so emotionally involved. I am not worried about what they say to me and you shouldn't either. Anyone with any sense of self-awareness can read their stuff and see what they are about. All they are about is insulting the people they can't reasonably debate and they attack the person instead of the issue. It's a typical tactic of low character so don't give in to it. I do, however, like your "three-finger-disease" analogy. That is right-on. Isn't it funny though how obsessed they are not only with YTB now, but also with me? LOL.
ReplyDeleteSteve M. 1973 - I sure hope you are not Steve Mencik.
FM, don't flatter yourself. No one is obsessed with either you or ytb. Haven't you ever heard the old saying about the squeaky wheel getting the grease?
ReplyDeleteI believe firemedic knows all about grease! You know all those hunky firemedics hanging out in the firehouse showers
ReplyDeleteFiremedic - I have one simple question for you. It's not difficult, you don't have to resort to any name calling or deflection. Just a simple yes or no will do. Question = Do you EVER work? I mean at a real job.
ReplyDeleteAinsworth, looking forward to your next video!
ReplyDeleteNo Moron, I answered your question yesterday. It's called 24 hour shifts with several days off at a time. And I don't resort to name calling. Perhaps some reactive sarcasm once in a while.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell is Steve Mencik?
ReplyDeletefiremedic said...
ReplyDeleteAinsworth, looking forward to your next video!
Oh, FM, your lame attempt at insults are so droll and boring. Can't you come up with something new and original? Can't you come up with ANYTHING original? Of course you would like the "three finger" analogy. It's one that you and others of your ilk use ad naseum.
No Moron, of course FM has a job. His title is head brownnoser to the old fart. He is sitting next to the old man in Wood River, while the 2 of them try to come up with some witty repartee with which to try and insult anyone who doesn't believe in the hogwash. If you think about it, it's probably the old fart who is posting as anonymous, with the threats. His brain doesn't work well enough to come up with some sort of screen name.
Oh, wait. That theory doesn't work, because even though FM is in Wood River all the time, and would like us to think he is "in", he really isn't, so he can't be the head brown noser. I guess maybe the best he can attain is being assistant to the assistant butt wiper in the semi-executive water closet. It's nice of lloyd, scott and kim to give you several days off in a row, FM. Kudos to them for that.
Now, see, FM, THAT'S how you insult someone. And why do I insult you? Two reasons. First, because I can, and secondly, because you just make it so damn easy!
Whats with the Anon coward whos posting about kicking someones ass? How old you 12? We are resorting to physical violence threats now because you cannot debate the issue, or is learning that the company you love so dear is not as perfect as you want to believe.
ReplyDeleteGrow up. Make a name for yourself and debate, if you want to be the schoolyard bully then go back to grade school.
firemedic here: Come on Ainsworth, you can do better than that! Don't hold back there sport!
ReplyDeleteSteve M. 1973 said...
ReplyDelete"Who the hell "Steve Mencik?"
One of but a few of the anti-ytb posters that actually has some class.
This is an absolute disgrace!!!! I am neither from YTB nor even in the industry. I found this blog trying to find information about the industry to determine if this is what I wanted.
ReplyDeleteYou people really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. And this is what you call professionals??????? What happens when consumers come here???? You have ruined my concept of the travel industry!!
Anonymous. Well obviously there is some derision in the industry and the basic point is that it boils down to professionals and amateurs.
ReplyDeleteThe commenting really has taken a turn for the worse and I agree. But unfortunately with most blogs, anonymity is cheap. If you are interested in learning why I feel MLMs and Travel Are A Bad Mix, then you can simply read the posts.
The comments are essentially free form and people are able to say their opinion without censure. There are people that will read the comments and make their decisions accordingly.
I really don't care what the excuses are, if you CLAIM to be professionals there is no need to act and speak the way you all are. You can feel anything is a bad mix, but why act in this manner??? And I can't tell WHO the professionals are and WHO the amateurs are!!! You ALL stink.
ReplyDelete"YTB has once again paid for placement in a publication that neither endorses them or approves of them"
ReplyDeleteJohn, was your statement an opinion or a fact? And if it was an opinion are you willing to go on record and correct it like you did with the CLIA article where you accused YTB of paying off CLIA?
Anon--isn't America wonderful? We are all entitled to our own opinions and you have made yours. SO all is good.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and checking out the blog. Good luck in your search for an industry.
I never said YTB paid off CLIA. I merely posted CLIAs response and I stand by my original comment that CLIA is a sell out to YTB because YTB is a cash cow for them and the YTBites are exploiting the loophole.
ReplyDeleteOn this particular post, it is neither fact or opinion. It is inference and when one is mentioned in an ad, one can infer that it was paid. So no retraction or correction here. Feel free to blog about it on Traverus Integrity.
"On this particular post, it is neither fact or opinion. It is inference and when one is mentioned in an ad, one can infer that it was paid."
ReplyDeleteSo when you said "YTB has once again paid" am I wrong to take that as you are saying that, well, YTB paid for the "inference"?
And John, on your original post about CLIA you insinuated that YTB was slipping cash to CLIA under the table until you corrected it. This too, was done without any facts to back it up and you have said on here several times that you back up what you say with facts.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular post you stated that "YTB (not anyone else) paid". Where are your facts to back that up. You didn't say "Looks like YTB" or "Seems like". You made a matter-of-fact statement.
Hey, YTB was mentioned in the ad. I do not know the details of the transaction so call Coach and ask him. Maybe he has a deal with Candee and pays for each mention? I don't know. But if you see a Bud commercial on television, you can be sure that Bud paid for it.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to sit here and split hairs with you as it appears you have done for the past 100+ comments. So don't ask again.
The point that was made is that Doug and others went out to the public stating that Inc. magazine called YTB a great opportunity and the FACT is that it was an advertisement. They were not endorsed by Inc. magazine, and Inc. magazine did not write about YTB. It was an ad. Just like the Success at Home magazines that YTB purchased and the Saturday Evening Post cover.
So, firemedic, between your runs, why not see if Coach can fax you a copy of the invoice so you can know for sure!
FYI--I never said YTB was slipping cash to CLIA. Show me where I said that? The headline was CLIA SELLS OUT. And then the ONLY correction was when CLIA finally returned an email and I posted their "official" response.
ReplyDeleteSo if you say otherwise firmedic---show me the money or shut up
"Hey, YTB was mentioned in the ad. I do not know the details of the transaction so call Coach and ask him. Maybe he has a deal with Candee and pays for each mention? I don't know."
ReplyDeleteCarlson was mentioned, Microtel was mentioned, and several others. Did they all pay? You are right John, you don't know and you know it. Doug stated in his article that it was an advertisement by CruiseOne.
You made a matter-of-fact statement John without proof and usually you are more responsible than that. You generally watch your wording but not in this case.
"FYI--I never said YTB was slipping cash to CLIA. Show me where I said that? "
ReplyDeleteYeah, you deleted that insinuation pretty quick but not before several people read it including John Smith and you know it John.
Firemedic doesn't make any runs anymore. They benched him. Now, he has no life other than this blog. ROTFL!
ReplyDeleteCripes, talk about beating a dead horse huh Kit? Can we say obsessed and lonely as well? LMAO
ReplyDelete"Steve M. 1973 - I sure hope you are not Steve Mencik."
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who Steve M. 1973 is, but rest assured it is not Steve Mencik. You can see my profile has real information in it, and I do not hide behind made up names. I have been too busy with other things, so I haven't commented on this thread until now.