Sentric Digital are spammers - AVOID
Reply
CC001 wrote:
the worst the would of happened to anyone by following the link and heading to the Bestival Site would be they may of wound up winning a trip to camp bestival

'That'.

And 'have'.
throughsilver wrote:
CC001 wrote:
the worst the would of happened to anyone by following the link and heading to the Bestival Site would be they may of wound up winning a trip to camp bestival

'That'.

And 'have'.



seriously dude? come on.

This is obviously a losing battle for me, I've tried to be honest and give a reason for posting here but it obviously doesn't suffice so there's not much more I can say.
Yes, your reason is because you were paid, in blood diamonds, to spam the internet for your clients.
Letter written, addressed to a few of Bestival's organisers and CCd to Liam and his boss:

Quote:
Hi there. I am an administrator at an online gaming forum, beex.co.uk.

We recently received this post from a spam account:
viewtopic.php?p=433358#p433358

This content is irrelevent to our forum, with a mostly-male mostly-under-30 readership; believe me, you wouldn't want us drinking heavily at your family holidays. We traced the spammer to Liam Flanders, of Sentric Digital and engaged with him on Twitter. Googling the contents of the post shows numerous other forums he has posted the same content on.

He later returned to our thread:
viewtopic.php?p=433485#p433485
and admitted that he didn't spend any time considering our content before posting -- he made the post based on the fact that one of our posters mention the Green Man festival once. We've confirmed this by looking at our hit logs; Liam arrived on our forum at 2:49:16, signed up 19 seconds later, and made his post 1:30 after that.

We don't believe that this sort of spamming is an acceptable way to promote your venue, and we hope you agree. Indeed, one of our posters attended Bestival last year and said he would reconsider going again because of your actions. Once the association "Bestival = spammer" is in people's brains, it's very hard to remove again.

I look forward to your reply with an explanation for Liams's actions.
Oh! Sentric Digital's email addresses bounce! How odd for such a forward looking company.
I've also got issues with the terms and conditions of the competition, which state you have to fill in a form with your name and email to enter, and then tell us that you must be over 18 (fine) and that the judge's decision is final.
What, prey, is the judge going to be judging? This is why laying out the judging criteria is a legal requirement for the competition.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Quote:
Liams's


How could you?! I thought what we had was special?!!
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Letter written, addressed to a few of Bestival's organisers and CCd to Liam and his boss:

Quote:
Hi there. I am an administrator at an online gaming forum, beex.co.uk.

We recently received this post from a spam account:
viewtopic.php?p=433358#p433358

This content is irrelevent to our forum, with a mostly-male mostly-under-30 readership; believe me, you wouldn't want us drinking heavily at your family holidays. We traced the spammer to Liam Flanders, of Sentric Digital and engaged with him on Twitter. Googling the contents of the post shows numerous other forums he has posted the same content on.

He later returned to our thread:
viewtopic.php?p=433485#p433485
and admitted that he didn't spend any time considering our content before posting -- he made the post based on the fact that one of our posters mention the Green Man festival once. We've confirmed this by looking at our hit logs; Liam arrived on our forum at 2:49:16, signed up 19 seconds later, and made his post 1:30 after that.

We don't believe that this sort of spamming is an acceptable way to promote your venue, and we hope you agree. Indeed, one of our posters attended Bestival last year and said he would reconsider going again because of your actions. Once the association "Bestival = spammer" is in people's brains, it's very hard to remove again.

I look forward to your reply with an explanation for Liams's actions.



Just to clarify it wasn't myself you were talking to on Twitter it was my boss
CC001 wrote:
Just to clarify it wasn't myself you were talking to on Twitter it was my boss
If email addresses for both you and your boss weren't bouncing you could have replied to the email:

Quote:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [email protected] (state 17).


Quote:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [email protected] (state 14).
Maybe it's an anti spam measure.
CC001 wrote:
throughsilver wrote:
CC001 wrote:
the worst the would of happened to anyone by following the link and heading to the Bestival Site would be they may of wound up winning a trip to camp bestival

'That'.

And 'have'.

seriously dude? come on.

Okay. The/that I'll give you, as it looks like a typo.

'Would of', though? Yes, I'm serious.
throughsilver wrote:
Yes, I'm serious.

You'd think he'd know how we feel about spelling and grammar, given how much he knows about our festival habits.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
CC001 wrote:
Just to clarify it wasn't myself you were talking to on Twitter it was my boss
If email addresses for both you and your boss weren't bouncing you could have replied to the email:

Quote:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [email protected] (state 17).


Quote:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

[email protected]

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay for [email protected] (state 14).



I've been recieving emails fine all day, I've got no idea why these are bouncing. try .co.uk - We've just this week switched from an exchange server to google apps web mail so that may be causing problems but as I say I've been getting emails all day
Have your clients approved this marketing tactic, CC001?
Dimrill wrote:
Amusingly if you google the URL that he left there you end up with an "online legal advice" Wordpress page.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Have your clients approved this marketing tactic, CC001?


Yeah it's part of what we get paid for on certain campaigns. Like I say, I do try to keep things relevant but unfortunately in this case not so.
So not only is Liam an unrepentant spammer, along with his employers Sentric Digital Spamming Agency, but he's also an incompetent spammer? Cor.
I don't think any forum would appreciate someone signing up just to promote something even if it was relevant. This kind of marketing is generally the domain of Viagra sellers or Chinese electronics suppliers, surely your clients don't want to be in this kind of company?
Dimrill wrote:
So not only is Liam an unrepentant spammer, along with his employers Sentric Digital Spamming Agency, but he's also an incompetent spammer? Cor.


Debatable. Right chaps, I'm off for my dinner, good evening.
Amazing. This and Gillian have made the internet Amazing today.

Oh for a proper, consistent connection this week.
CC001 wrote:
Dimrill wrote:
So not only is Liam an unrepentant spammer, along with his employers Sentric Digital Spamming Agency, but he's also an incompetent spammer? Cor.


Debatable. Right chaps, I'm off for my dinner, good evening.



Debatable that you're incompetent, right? The fact you're a spammer is beyond dispute.
Amazing!

As if our little forum is fighting the good fight against Spam!

Good work boys! :hat:
This is utter gold. Idiot.
If we are offered tickets to bestival (not camp bestival) as an apology, I will suffer the indignity of using them on behalf of the board.
Dr Lave wrote:
Gillian


I've only jsut caught up with this. Awesome!
Can someone point me in the direction of somewhere I can catch up with Gillian please?
I've just checked the rules and can't see anything in them that says this chap ought not to have posted a thing about a festival (not that he checked). Granted, he followed a link and made a post but frankly Bestival is more relevant to my interests at least than half the threads on the frontpage today.

So, here's some rules:

Quote:
THE RULES

The RULES are as follows:

Be excellent to each other.

This is a friendly community that encourages intellectual debate, discussion and freedom of speech. Personal attacks and trolling will not be tolerated.


here's his first reply on here:

Quote:
Wow, if I realised posting a link to a competition to win tickets to a festival would ruffle so many feathers I would have thought twice. I take the point of nobody on here being interested in Camp Bestival - fair enough - but in an attempt to justify posting, I always search for threads that relate to keywords and from Google discussions I found a post on here where someone was saying they were off to the green man festival which is a similar vibe to Camp Bestival. I don't make a habit of pushing irrelevant stuff, it's not worth it, as your reactions show.

Also, the competition has the backing of camp bestival and it's all above board.

Sorry to have put you all out. I'll make a note not to bother here again.


Can anyone honestly say that what followed from 'our' side doesn't constitute some of the activities we legislate against?

I'd started to make a list of things in this thread from knee-jerk name-calling to forensic slagging off to gleefully rabid cyber-stalking, all of which I'd rather just sum up as being a thread more akin to Lord of the Flies than Bill and Ted.

It's embarrassing and totally disproportionate.
TheVision wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of somewhere I can catch up with Gillian please?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pd ... re-twitter
Couldn't give a shit. Marketeer cuntswab.
TheVision wrote:
Can someone point me in the direction of somewhere I can catch up with Gillian please?
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/gillian-mc ... dacre.html
GovernmentYard wrote:
gleefully rabid cyber-stalking

That starts tomorrow, when I start going through his store-card records ;)
CC001 wrote:
Wow, if I realised posting a link to a competition to win tickets to a festival would ruffle so many feathers I would have thought twice. I take the point of nobody on here being interested in Camp Bestival - fair enough - but in an attempt to justify posting, I always search for threads that relate to keywords and from Google discussions I found a post on here where someone was saying they were off to the green man festival which is a similar vibe to Camp Bestival. I don't make a habit of pushing irrelevant stuff, it's not worth it, as your reactions show.

Also, the competition has the backing of camp bestival and it's all above board.

Sorry to have put you all out. I'll make a note not to bother here again.


This thread is utterly wonderful. :DD

1) Spam

2) Snide, passive-aggressive flouncing

3) ???

4) PROFIT



GY - Hawking shit to people for money is thoroughly un-excellent behaviour. If I came into the pub while you were with your mates and started chatting, I might expect a cordial reception. If I came up and started throwing pizza flyers at you and wowing about pizza, I might expect to be glassed, chaired, and pavemented.
That Gillian story is madness... Thanks Doc and Malia!
@GY. Are all those iphone spamcunts welcome too? There is a large proportion of that forum like iphones after all.
sinister agent wrote:
GY - Hawking shit to people for money is thoroughly un-excellent behaviour. If I came into the pub while you were with your mates and started chatting, I might expect a cordial reception. If I came up and started throwing pizza flyers at you and wowing about pizza, I might expect to be glassed, chaired, and pavemented.


Christ, what sort of rough dives do you go to?
End of an Era wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
GY - Hawking shit to people for money is thoroughly un-excellent behaviour. If I came into the pub while you were with your mates and started chatting, I might expect a cordial reception. If I came up and started throwing pizza flyers at you and wowing about pizza, I might expect to be glassed, chaired, and pavemented.


Christ, what sort of rough dives do you go to?


To quote a local review:

Quote:
In Hayes, we have theme pubs. The theme is "stabbing", so be very careful.
Quote:
GY - Hawking shit to people for money is thoroughly un-excellent behaviour. If I came into the pub while you were with your mates and started chatting, I might expect a cordial reception. If I came up and started throwing pizza flyers at you and wowing about pizza, I might expect to be glassed, chaired, and pavemented.


However if I put a pizza flyer on your table because it looked like you might enjoy a pizza, and there was a competition to get a free pizza on it, I would not expect to be glassed, chaired and pavemented.

Especially as I then came back when it turned out I'd annoyed you by giving you that leaflet (even though I'd just been doing my fairly innocuous job), and then I apologised and even gave you my reasons for doing so.

And then even though I'd done that (which I really didn't have to), you then kicked me in anyway. And phoned my boss, because I hadn't stuck to your rules. How very excellent of you.
Oh-oh. Looks like the STAG lot are coming to stake their moral claim.
Jesus Christ, Dan. You're from a.d, aren't you? When did you get so fucking nice? We'd have shredded the cunt on there.
People defending spammers? What next? Tributes on Facebook to Raoul Moat?
Must admit, I too think this has been a ludicrous, disproportionate over reaction; the guy even tried to explain himself and apologise, after a fashion at least.

Blimey, remind me not to cross any of you guys. :(
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
People defending spammers? What next? Tributes on Facebook to Raoul Moat?
He was a good bloke. Always kind to his mum & respectful to his elders.

Them folk that he hurt? Well they must've wound him up y'know. They deserved it.
Are you trying to suggest or insinuate something, Dimrill?
Other than a shrug? Yeah. I'm saying your a dead bent gayer. Of course.
:(
I don't like this thread and agree with GY.
Dimrill wrote:
Other than a shrug? Yeah. I'm saying your a dead bent gayer. Of course.


Oh, that's alright then. As you were. :D
I'm also saying you live in a black hole and wear a green wristband like the Ultimate Warrior.
No no no, he sold the TT.

;)
Page 2 of 6 [ 256 posts ]