He placed the logs before I ever posted about the issue on the forum.
Important to note-- Matthew never mentioned once anything about you publicly. The thread he started was a general thread for assistance and made no connection between the logs he posted and you, in fact, he took the time to redact everything related to your business and name. He later removed it just the same out of request from some individuals at the magazine. Matthew is grief stricken about this entire thing because he always feels responsible for everything that happens, even when it's not his fault-- that's why we love Matthew. He's not always careful (barely ever actually) but he's sincere and does what needs to be done to get jobs done. In your case, it is quite publicly clear now why he could not function-- because you do not follow simple instruction and he cannot develop a website or advertisement without being given clear and concise information (which you are incapable of giving). I pity Matthew at this moment for the hell it must have been trying to design a website under those conditions and I would have charged you three times what he did.
He struck first and not in a professional way. He made this mess here on the forum.
You posted a message on the magazine thread that Matthew had stolen 100BTC from you. This happened long before the recent problems. You struck first. You made Matthew not want to work with you and everyone at the magazine think of you as nothing but an unprofessional walking liability.
Yeah, I am trying to fully understand the terms of the refund. Once I reply to the e-mail I will post your e-mail and my reply to it here. It is really hard to tell where the line is between this "company" and Matthew.
In fact it is not hard at all. The website design was a personal contract, everything else was magazine related. That was made clear in the original forum PM logs as well. No one in their right mind would be confused about that. Furthermore, since you already agreed to cancel that contract and find a new designer (which you did), there is no contract to dispute. What you are asking for is for a refund of a contract you have already cancelled, and addtionally, asking for a refund to the magazine for several services that were sold to you by an agent of the magazine under certain conditions that were not met to your liking. All understandable.
I'm trying to understand if Matthew posted my personal logs as an individual or as an agent representing your company.
If you read the thread he posted the anonymous logs to, he was posting them as an individual and asking for advice on how to handle the personal contract between you and him for the website design
I am trying to understand if Matthew made the website design deal as an individual or as an agent of your company.
Simple. Magazine's don't make websites for people. You bought advertising space and then asked Matthew if he knew anyone who could design the website and Matthew privately tried to assist you with it. What are you confused about? The logs made it very clear.
I'm trying to figure our if Matthew went around personally insulting me in public as an individual or as an agent of your company.
You're a walking insult to professionalism.
When did your company legally form? That will clear up some of this. Also a link to a source would be helpful.
I don't think that would clear up -anything-, but FYI it formed months and months ago.
Matthew did not make it clear that he was doing these things on your behalf.
I warned you once that your lies were trying my patience. When he first contacted you it was related to advertising space in the magazine. In what universe would Matthew be able to sell advertising space in a magazine -privately-?
I had issues with Matthew but your company is coming in and trying to take responsibility for his actions. I never attacked your company or had any problem with it.
I warned you once that your lies were trying my patience. This is your final warning. When you posted in the magazine thread about Matthew having stolen money from you, apologized, and then once again came back to the same magazine thread to tell everyone you were scammed, you dragged the company into it.
Can you help me understand this part of the e-mail "Email is considered a binding contract which you could have amended the terms to as mentioned above. ". I am not a lawyer so I do not really know but is that true? If I send an e-mail it's a binding contract? Is that international law or Korea or where? I would like to look into this more.
If there is anything we can all agree to it's that you need more education. BitTalk Media is a UK company. For Adam Harding to give you a refund, BitTalk Media requires a legally binding contract according to UK guidelines to cover the UK company in the event that you went to the UK and tried to sue them for a refund claiming it was never given to you.
What a mess... Keep in mind you/Matthew have my BTC address and could end this at anytime...
Matthew does not have the BTC, the magazine does. Matthew does not have your BTC address-- why would he? You've never given it to him. You are asking for a refund from the magazine as well and yet you think Matthew-- an editor-- is the person to give it to you?
If Matthew was not acting as an agent on the website deal then why does the mag company not send back the 50 BTC to Matthew so Matthew can give to me?
Matthew crossed private/professional channels by doing this, which he did as a favor to you and instantly regretted. That much will never happen again. Once again, Matthew underestimates the shady character of people in the Bitcoin community and assumed that it would just 'be okay'. He's already been fussed at for this.
The magazine probably will end up giving 50BTC back to Matthew to send to you himself, but you're ignoring the fact that the magazine, but you're asking for more than just the refund for the webdesign. I think you don't even know what you want and that's why you look crazy.
Esp if this has nothing to do with the mag like you say...
Is anyone else reading this? When did anyone say Matthew has nothing to do with the magazine? The only thing we've been saying is that Matthew is not in charge of refunds.