anyone buy a printer from matt c?

[Todd-sta]

Bob of earth - if you would reread my post - it was in reference to the quoted statement from Pro Graphics....who ended a line with "Forgiveness is soley at God's discretion."

This would intimate that he had some belief in God and that his understanding was that only God can forgive. I simply pointed out my understanding of what is taught in the Bible as man's responsibility for forgiveness.

You can choose to believe that or devise your own belief system - that is your option in how you express your free will. In any event...what you decide to believe doesn't change the reality of God's directive. My belief is that God's declaration for forgiveness supercedes man's need for revenge...but that's just me.

There is justice and then there is revenge - those are two different things.

I think it IS appropriate to interject religious conjecture into this topic because it's evidently upon these priinciples that Robert has taken the tact he has so aptly expressed. Reread Robert's posts - it's plainly stated that his religious convictions have guided him in his decision making regarding how he views the appropriate response to his employees indiscretions.

In any event...the bottom line is that regardless of who forgives who....it appears that Robert has decided to not pursue adjustments on pricing with his customers, has decided to give his employee a second chance with stipulations and reimbursement of lost funds, and has adjusted his internal tracking methods.

Seems to me it's a win-win situation for everyone concerned....and flame makes a good point...."In a hundred years, who's gonna care?"

 

[Replicator]

In reply to a PM by Robertw :

Originally Posted by Robertw
Rep-
don't assume this has ever happened, it hasn't.

Personally I take offense to this comment and you should apologize to the thread
unless you have proof that anyone, anytime has ever been charged by my company
for goods not received.

I'm a straight up business owner with a moral backbone that many business owners
should consider adopting, especially in the area of customer service.

RW

Robert,

I was going by a post on the thread that referred to c/c transactions
taking place after the original agreements were all signed and the iiiiiiiii's
dotted and the ttttttt's crossed.

Originally Posted by bullcrew View Post
Bought a new graphtec fc7000-100 from him at a discounted price
then got a bill for an additional $2600.

If this is untrue then I apologize, but if it is true,
then it's one of those karma situations that will have to play out here,
in the people's court.

This is not a personal attack on you or your company . . .
It is a brotherhood of sign people watching out for one another,
and in a tight knit community like this, word of mouth could make or break you.

I hope that if there were such transactions that occurred,
they will be handled and those persons affected will make it known here.

If that is not the case, then there is nothing to fair
and your honesty and forthcoming of the resolutions
between these parties will win back the hearts of all who respect
the merchants here on Signs-101.

I have never been affected by any of these allegations,
but I have only purchased media.
I did not start this thread and with that in mind
I can only go by what is said . . . I do not judge
until all the facts are in, but so far I've heard nothing but talk of god and lawyers.
NO actual statements concerning what the true accusations may or may not
have been about, or what you have to say that will make myself
and/or anyone else here want to believe that if an injustice has occurred,
that you will be responsible for it.

I heard from several people in pm's that you are a real stand-up guy,
and I want to believe that, but I reserve the right to wait and see all the facts,
or at least all the facts that you care to reveal to the members here,
that will bring piece of mind and closure to this mess.

One final thought that I did not put into the PM reply to Robertw.
As a representative of UnicaDigital and portraying himself as such
while dealing with any unsuspecting clients who may have purchased
items from him that were not approved by you and your company,
Matt and his transactions are ultimately your responsibility,
and no matter how this ends up being handled with Matt,
you do hold some liability in resolving any issues there may be.

That came from a .50¢ an hour lawyer . . . !

~Rep

 

[THATgirl]

not that it matters what I think, but I do like the way Robert is here trying to explain the situation and make things right.

But I also agree with what Flamey said
"It took me a minute, but I can see what Roberts trying to say. What Matt did was his fault, and he has to take care of stuff. BUT, to the people who got burned... don't forget you knew something was probably fishy in the dealings anyways. Like taking on a cell phone instead of a business line, doing stuff out of the ordinary, strange money dealings.... etc."


Usually if you know something is priced too low, there is something fishy with the deal. And why would you pay Matt instead of the company?

I hope it all works out for Robert.

 

[Pro Signs & Graphix]

Todd -

I will not get into a religious argument, as there is no winning for either "side". Apparently I did not do a decent job of explaining the point I was trying to make.

Here are some of the facts that have been stated:

- Reported transactions between Matt and a few customers (also members) found not to be 100% on the up-n-up.
- Fred speaks with Robert at Unica and states that Matt has been fired and denied privileges to the forum for theft and fraud.
- Robert comes on board and claims that a resolution has been reached, that there will be no attempted action against purchasers, and that Matt has been reinstated, while putting all of this behind.
- Fred reinstates Matt's forum privileges, as per Robert's request.
- Matt makes public admission and apology.
- Robert shifts gears and blame to purchasers.

Here is my point:

Whatever Robert did for resolution and restitution is his business, and his alone. Robert interjected religion as to the reason why he did what he stated but I have to question whether it was about religious conviction or just the easiest, simplest and most assured way to recover the lost funds - but that IS still his business. I agree with and support whatever decisions he deems suitable for him

I became irked when Robert decided to publicly blame the purchasers, giving Matt a form of exoneration. I do not agree with this in any way whatsoever. Is Robert or anybody in effect saying that if I were to purchase media at 20% less than the next cheapest distributor that I MUST know that there media is stolen - I don't think so. Matt claimed that these machines were HIS. With that in mind, why would I question a check being written directly to Matt?

Robert's additional comments seem to show a shift in position. As a businessman, and someone who was actually planning to call (and hopefully even do business with Unica), that "shifted position worries me. Matt personally admitted thievery. The first time is the hardest - for anything. After that it is easy.

To elaborate even further, and while it is understood that they are merchant members, I do not even agree with Fred reinstating Matt's privileges. Matt, in part, used this vehicle (forum), and other forums to carry out his plan. We all know Fred is a very credible man. We also know that Fred has the last word on this forum BUT reinstating Matt's privileges can do nothing more than:

1. Make it appear that there that Matt is a credible person.
2. Place other unsuspecting members/users, of s101, at risk.

Where does the line for honesty and integrity get drawn? I do not subscribe to the religious theories of forgiveness, and even forgetfulness. I know that I am being harsh, and I would much harsher had I been involved in any of these dealings. I am as harsh as I am due to prior personal experience, the fact that I would/will not place myself at risk, AND the fact that I would hate to see other members/friends suffer any harm in the future.

Once a person is proven a thief, they are always a thief, and for Robert to come to Matt's defense is the equivalent of agreeing with the thief.

 

[MobileImpact]

i stayed out of this for a reason, in this debate, in these dealings, in this situation there are no winners or losers. Quite frankly, everyone involved in it is at fault. Robert for not realizing what was going on in HIS company, Matt, for being a low life and screwing Robert over, as well as everyone who purchased a bargain, knowing something was wrong and going through with the deal justifying in the back of their minds.

Robert has a long road ahead of him to make things right,
Matt, is a crook and should be in Jail,
Everyone that got the "deal" should do the right thing.

In any case I wish all parties involved the best of luck.

Good day, & Good Profits!

Kevin

 

[bob]

your point......???

Attend...

If someone bases their entire exposition on a single premise and then infers all manner of things from that premise then, pay attention, if the basic premise is not accepted then all that follows from that premise is invalid.

Read that as many times at it takes you to develop at least a clue as to the nature of forensic fundamentals.

In simple terms; if someone offers 'God says' and the respondent denies these gods, then the entire argument from that point is fallacious. Regardless of the fervor and zeal of the true believer.

 

[The Sign Dude]

I would have to say that Robert has taken the road least traveled in this situation which in turn probably reflects in his business and loyalty to his customers. I dont think the situation was as cut and dry as it might have looked. Hopefully Matt will be able to work through this situation and be an asset to Roberts company once again.

Good Luck to you both
Wish you were closer so we could use you some.

 

[Flame]

Attend...

If someone bases their entire exposition on a single premise and then infers all manner of things from that premise then, pay attention, if the basic premise is not accepted then all that follows from that premise is invalid.

Read that as many times at it takes you to develop at least a clue as to the nature of forensic fundamentals.

In simple terms; if someone offers 'God says' and the respondent denies these gods, then the entire argument from that point is fallacious. Regardless of the fervor and zeal of the true believer.

You were totally clueless as to what he was even saying, huh?

Wow, uses big words but struggles grasping basic conversation.

 

[iSign]

Attend...

If someone bases their entire exposition on a single premise and then infers all manner of things from that premise then, pay attention, if the basic premise is not accepted then all that follows from that premise is invalid.

Read that as many times at it takes you to develop at least a clue as to the nature of forensic fundamentals.

In simple terms; if someone offers 'God says' and the respondent denies these gods, then the entire argument from that point is fallacious. Regardless of the fervor and zeal of the true believer.

Wow, uses big words but struggles grasping basic conversation.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

...that was pretty damn funny Flame!

bob, regarding "forensic fundamentals" ...while I would never think to call it that, & would never ascribe the same meaning to the phrase if I encountered it out of context... I agree 100% with the forensic fundamentals.

In theory, you are not failing to grasp basic conversation as Flame would say... you are pointing out that, any persuasive paragraph that attempts to justify a viewpoint, will be a wasted paragraph on those who refute the qualifying premise.

The reason Flames comment strikes me as hilarious, besides the short, sweet, small worded-ness of it... is because you do seem to be failing to grasp that while there is a few paragraphs following Todd-sta's "premise" (to which you clearly do not adopt) .

..there is really no "entire argument from that point" to judge as "fallacious"

...Todd's "premise" that you quoted, existed ONLY to refute another posters intrepretation a very narrow concept. Either "man can not forgive", or 'man can (& should) forgive"

 

[iSign]

I became irked when Robert decided to publicly blame the purchasers, giving Matt a form of exoneration. I do not agree with this in any way whatsoever. Is Robert or anybody in effect saying that if I were to purchase media at 20% less than the next cheapest distributor that I MUST know that there media is stolen - I don't think so. Matt claimed that these machines were HIS. With that in mind, why would I question a check being written directly to Matt?

Pro, I think Robert and Matt are probably the 2 people who know most, if not all the details here... and the purchasers know many details we don't know... but may not know every detail of all the manuerving between Robert, Matt and Mutoh, or the details of the other purchasers.

that said... I also do not think we are entitled to have every shread of evidence spread out before our little court of public opinion.

While I agree that the outward appearance of all this could destroy the company, and full disclosure might be the best defense (if the facts all vindicate Robert, rather then implicate him) ...I still think it is not right to try to sway public opinion against someone without all the facts.

Is it right for me to try to sway public opinion for someone? I'm sure it looks as though that is my intention, but in reality I am withholding judgement until I see if more information is revealed... but I also wanted to attempt to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

I quoted what "irks" you because I do not think "Robert decided to publicly blame the purchasers, giving Matt a form of exoneration" I think Robert has questioned whether any purchasers had a gut instinct that something was awry. That is a legitimate question!

As stated above... WE DON"T HAVE ALL THE FACTS... but Robert has enough facts to justify questioning those who received the rewards for something his company is now suffering losses for. He didn't "blame" anyone, and he sure as hell doesn't come off to me as exonerating Matt at all.

What irks me is him being down... and a bunch of people here kicking him because they got screwed in some fraudulent deal in their past.

Let the purchasers finish working this out, & you can bet they will fill us in on whether they were screwed, blamed, or handled professionally. It's one thing to come on here and swap speculative stories about the outside world... but there is someone right here on the board, trying to navigate a sticky situation so criticizing him from out here in the cheap seats, before the facts roll out... that's wrong! (in my humble opinion)

 

[Pro Signs & Graphix]

iSign - Your points are well taken. By no means do I want the appearance that I am trying to "kick 'in when he's down" nor sway public opinion. I do not even want to know all of the details, as none of the transactions had anything to do with us.

What upsets me is the comment about a "deal", and the purchasers share equal blame. I cannot agree with that. Just as I used the example of 20% off. Does that mean that any sale, or any deal for that matter is not legit? Does that mean that unless I pay MSRP something is fishy (or stolen)? I would not think so.

Maybe I have an unfair advantage here. I am what I feel to be very close to our main distributor. I know first hand what these things (equipment and materials) cost. I usually try and avoid the quibbling because I realize that everyone has to make money, and prefer to avoid insulting people (sellers) in the process. Because of this, I know these deals were not all that far fetched, and I find it hard to blame the purchasers, if any at all.

All of this gives the feeling (to me) that if we (or you) were to every purchase media or equipment, Unica may try and come back and say "we need more money" after the fact, and that the sales rep "just made a mistake". Nobody I know would ever do business under those circumstances. At this moment, I for one, would be petrified to give a cc # over the phone, prior to a written and signed invoice. The invoking of the "forgiveness" has done nothing but complicate matters, even for those that that were not hurt.

All I am saying to Robert is "Which is it? Draw a line and live by it". I would have never taken this public position if the appearance of "shifting gears" did not present itself. Not only did Robert re-hire Matt, he also asked for his privileges to be re-instated. Do we condone thievery or not? If so, to what degree, or product for that matter? That is something I think we all have a right to know. Anything less is hypocrisy. The rest (the details) is the business of those affected.

Again, I am not kicking Robert when he is down. I know first hand how something like this feels BUT the fault lies with Matt, and the final responsibility lies with Robert - Not the customers.

 

[SignosaurusRex]

I have some comments and a question to pose to all and to Robert as well. In short, without going into a lot of details...I responded to an ad posted here on this forum for A Mutoh ValueJet VJ1204 48" printer for sale. A demo unit. It was posted as having approx. 150 hrs use on it. The price was originally posted as $11,000 but had at the time of my response been reduced to $10,600 and had additional hours of use as well. It was to come with An extra set of ink cartridges, some cleaning swabs, manual, stand and Wasatch 6.1 *full version*(?!) software. I previewed the stated equipment, along with some additional slightly used demo equipment that I was interested in and did purchase at approx. 10% discount. This preview took place in the showroom at A.U.Digital with both Matt and Robert present.
I agreed to the total package deal put together for this transaction. The same equipment was delivered and setup in my shop, some training was scheduled (for this next week). Here is how I come into this thread.... After having this tread brought to my attention, I reviewed my invoice and noticed that it did not list the software nor the extra equipment, however it did list the total amount of the agreed transaction paid with C.C. ...Now you can see where this would raise a flag and questions in my mind as to What my situation may or may not really be due to the nature of the posts on this thread up to that point. Upon checking my c.c. transactions records, all looked perfectly in order. The same was verified by Robert when he Returned my call. Cool, we're on the same page at this point. Now, Alot has been said that the customer should have known better, getting a "To good to be true" deal. I don't know all the details of the deals made by others but I'm getting the picture that they or at least some of them were pretty much the same situation. Now knowing these details, Was it a "too good to be true deal"? Should I have known better? Should anyone have known better and questioned it as legitimate? Hell No! I'm not taking any real sides or passing any judgments, thats not my place. I do think that some customers as well as myself have some legitimate issues to be handled. I wish the best for Robert, Matt and A.U.D. as a whole. Forgiveness in situations such as this must be based upon not just what is in ones heart, or an entire groups heart, but rather what is in the hearts of two, Man to Man! I would like to think, in a positive attitude, that all of the issues of these "Deals" will be handled in a forthright, professional and gracious manner, without the flexing of egos, the involvement of legal council, slanderous accusations and needless pain and suffering of any kind. I believe that we all will learn something of our selves and each other as we move forward, correcting that which needs correcting and nurturing & sharing with others that which is positive and healthy.

 

[Pro Image]

Rex Im glad that everything has work out in your situation..........

 

[iSign]

What upsets me is the comment about a "deal", and the purchasers share equal blame. I cannot agree with that.

I'm known on another forum for being the most prolific user of quotes in my replies. QuoteMeister not exactly being a term of endearment, but equally no sorce of shame... I write to communicate, and part of my communication is always geared toward not being misunderstood.

This is a long thread, I've read it all, & while I might search back to choose or verify words I might want to write, I'm not interested enough to search back to confirm or refute your statements. Did "purchasers share equal blame" actually ever get said by someone else, or is that just you saying that?

Just as I used the example of 20% off. Does that mean that any sale, or any deal for that matter is not legit? Does that mean that unless I pay MSRP something is fishy (or stolen)? I would not think so.

So while you are tossing around the 20% theory... what is that based on?
I wrote yesterday that I questioned Robert's $12K caddie for $4K as an unfair analogy because of some behind the scenes rumblings... If there really were 66% discounts (which I doubt at this point), & there really were an entire deck of personal cell phone or personal checking account irregularities stacking up... and unopened new equipment drop shipped from manufacturer, bypassing the vendor, & sold as "Demo" equipment... then I think "fishy" is an understatement.

If the discounts weren't as deep, and the deck wasn't as obviously stacked as that extreme example... there still might be some details we don't yet have that might warrent Roberts "check what's in your hearts at the end of the day" comments.

All I know is what one member PM'd me about, but even that was not the whole story, just one guy's story... and NOT one that appears as shady as the others appear to have been... (based only on my conjecture from incomplete info provided so far) ...and even in this lesser victim's case, it was a better then 20% break. (and NO! I don't think he should have known, or done anything different, nor do I hear any hint that Robert is asking, or wanting him to)

 

[Flame]

Oie...... it's like the never ending, never going anywhere thread.



:Oops:

 

[Just Another Sign Guy]

I have some comments and a question to pose to all and to Robert as well. In short, without going into a lot of details...I responded to an ad posted here on this forum for A Mutoh ValueJet VJ1204 48" printer for sale. A demo unit. It was posted as having approx. 150 hrs use on it. The price was originally posted as $11,000 but had at the time of my response been reduced to $10,600 and had additional hours of use as well. It was to come with An extra set of ink cartridges, some cleaning swabs, manual, stand and Wasatch 6.1 *full version*(?!) software. I previewed the stated equipment, along with some additional slightly used demo equipment that I was interested in and did purchase at approx. 10% discount. This preview took place in the showroom at A.U.Digital with both Matt and Robert present.
I agreed to the total package deal put together for this transaction. The same equipment was delivered and setup in my shop, some training was scheduled (for this next week). Here is how I come into this thread.... After having this tread brought to my attention, I reviewed my invoice and noticed that it did not list the software nor the extra equipment, however it did list the total amount of the agreed transaction paid with C.C. ...Now you can see where this would raise a flag and questions in my mind as to What my situation may or may not really be due to the nature of the posts on this thread up to that point. Upon checking my c.c. transactions records, all looked perfectly in order. The same was verified by Robert when he Returned my call. Cool, we're on the same page at this point. Now, Alot has been said that the customer should have known better, getting a "To good to be true" deal. I don't know all the details of the deals made by others but I'm getting the picture that they or at least some of them were pretty much the same situation. Now knowing these details, Was it a "too good to be true deal"? Should I have known better? Should anyone have known better and questioned it as legitimate? Hell No! I'm not taking any real sides or passing any judgments, thats not my place. I do think that some customers as well as myself have some legitimate issues to be handled. I wish the best for Robert, Matt and A.U.D. as a whole. Forgiveness in situations such as this must be based upon not just what is in ones heart, or an entire groups heart, but rather what is in the hearts of two, Man to Man! I would like to think, in a positive attitude, that all of the issues of these "Deals" will be handled in a forthright, professional and gracious manner, without the flexing of egos, the involvement of legal council, slanderous accusations and needless pain and suffering of any kind. I believe that we all will learn something of our selves and each other as we move forward, correcting that which needs correcting and nurturing & sharing with others that which is positive and healthy.

Rex i have seen legitimate deals when i sold sign equipment for a competitor of Unica;s that did not list every item and I would not worry too much about it, granted I would be on alert under the circumstances as well.

I had seen not only the deal that you described in your post but also others posted by Matt... at the time that I saw the deals I did not think anything was wrong with them other than they were a good deal that the distributor needed to sell for whatever reason, it is not unusual for a motivated salesperson to get the word out to sell a discounted product, it was odd that there seemed to be as many of them as there were in such a short span of time...I was also under the impression that Matt was representing himself or his own company and not a representative of another company, in high insight how he presented those deals should have indicated that something was wrong IF I would have known he was a employee many alarms would have been raised...it is always easier to see the warnings after the fact.

I have had communication with Robert and I must say that I am truly impressed with how he has handled this situation thus far. In the last month I experienced great financial loss because of employee theft. to recoup my losses via insurance it has become a legal matter, which has been a very difficult process (emotionally difficult) from the beginning I knew who it was and unfortunately this is going to cause great hardship in the ex employees life and that of his family, I sincerely wish that there would have been another avenue to reconcile the situation and it is refreshing to see someone else use other avenues.

 

[gvgraphics]

Here is the quote you are referring to Isign

For anyone who knew the deal was to good to be true!

...play with this. A woman comes to your door, you open it and notice she is well dressed and quite lovely. She offers to sell you the red cadillac thats parked outside on your curb. It's a classic and a real beauty.
She represent a Cadillac dealership and needs money to go back to New York and offers to sell this classic for $4000.00. You think to yourself, how stupid she is, this car is worth at least $12K, something seems fishy but you can't pass up the deal and write her a check for $12K. In your quickness to get a deal you forget to cross your T's and dot your I's. Your inner self was tricked by the greed that surfaced and you knew it, but selfishness became dominate to your common sense.

The car was stolen, you took ownership from a fraud who represented the product through unethical means. The fool was fooled but couldn't pass on the deal.

The words may seem harsh but the reality for the few who took advantage surely know the feeling in their hearts.

Done.

All though his analogy is not all that great as stated before, it sounds like he is stating that the buyers knew this was theft or fraud and yet still made the deal. Why I personally doubt that was the case going on what I know. My thoughts are if you call a dealer for equipment or even a car and they say I can make a deal with xxxx company to get you a good price, would you think it was fishy? Or would you think they are doing what they can to get the sale from you? Most don't know the dealer cost and would have no idea what is invested to make the sale.

This being said, I am by no means passing judgment or accusing anyone, i am simply expressing my personal thoughts.

 

[iSign]

I'm quite familiar with where any quotes I made came from, I was asking Pro who said "the purchasers share equal blame"

(the quotation marks here, are to identify which words I asked him about, although he did not use quotes... it could easily be construed he was quoting Robert, though I don't think so)

Sure, that quote you posted identify's when Roberts comments began to bring more heat on him... but in his defense, the first sentence you posted directs the latter comments only to: "anyone who knew the deal was to good to be true!" ... IF ...that qualifying statement (which he didn't put in there by accident) applies to anyone, then ...for them only, he is appealing to any sense of conscience or integrity that may have been compromised by that hunch.

 

[N2Harpz]

OK, who will get the last word in? .... This thread is getting waaaaayyyyy too wordy for me to keep up with. LOL

 

[Robertw]

The last and final word

It has been a pleasure to take part in this, my first, thread on a forum.
While the subject and reason for this thread is personally painful and somewhat financially devastating to my business I agree that it is getting old.
It is behind me, I have made a good decision regarding everything and will go forward in my personal life and business career with renewed gusto, changes in the way we process business dealings and new knowledge that comes partly from taking part in this thread.

Many have been supporters to my real reason for the continuation of this thread, others as I have stated are clueless. And again I will turn to GOD and say that almost everyone who got these deals knew they really were to good to be true, especially if they did any research on the web looking at prices and who didn't.

By the way, 20% deals are extremely close to dealer cost on printing hardware. In the world of HP Designjet printers this would mean dealers would loose about 15%. Add to all of this the cost of being in business, cost of money to hold inventory and demonstration equipment and you can see why I may have taken a harder line regarding what has transpired.

My intention is honorable. All I want to convey is that we all have a consciousness. Sometimes it will talk to us saying you shouldn't do that or do this or it my say go ahead that a great idea. I believe it's the holy spirit, others may call it something else. We all need to protect our moral fibers. It makes us stronger, wiser, and life is easier to live.

All wrongs are being corrected, no parties involved will be asked to pony up.
I know the "lawyer" word brings many of you tremors but don't be alarmed I was only relaying information, take it with you, throw it away, I don't care.

I will stand up with pride and say my decision to keep Matt was a good decision. I will proudly say that Unica digital is a great little company and the products and service we offer are the finest you can find in the areas that we are a part of. I will also say that I am not faultless, I make mistakes, I am after all human.

I am proud to share my thoughts and feeling to all of you. Again my thanks for lessons in both directions and support from those who are in the know.

The End