Estee Lauder TSV 03/03/22

[candycane]

Yes, I agree that the forum has to be moderated and sometimes people "have to be told" but there might be a kinder way of saying it?

Just my thoughts.

CC

 

[Sazza]

I feel for Sazza here she has to moderate what is said here on this forum for the benefit for us to use it and use our freedom to say as we wish.
Sadly surely no one who ever they may be can be allowed to speak as fact on behalf of any brand or QVC saying what is, as if they are party to fully know for sure what they have quoted.
The last thing I’m sure anyone wants is this site to get into trouble with a company, for what maybe being quoted wrongly as a fact, by someone who isn’t in a position to do so.
Thank you Sazza for everything you do.

Exactly we have to be careful or there could be legal implications.

Yes, I agree that the forum has to be moderated and sometimes people "have to be told" but there might be a kinder way of saying it?

Just my thoughts.

CC

Well as I said there is a long history to this.

 

[llloyd]

No it is not harsh as he was not giving his opinion. There is a long history to this issue and we cannot have members making statements that look like they are facts that have come from Q without giving a source.


Not a problem that you like his posts and find them helpful, many members do, but there are certain things that are not allowed.

So if SCW had put “ I think” or something similar before his post you would have taken that as an opinion not fact, is that correct?
Let’s hope he does in the future to avoid all this and get on with what he loves to do for us.

 

[donna255]

SCW, used to be on QVC Facebook this was before they changed the layout.

Now, I know he was trying to help, but when people were asking questions about upcoming TSVs and products, he used to come in and answer these. In the same way he answers on here. So people got the idea he actually worked for QVC which he did not. Many did ask do you work for QVC?

QVC banned him from their Facebook page in the end. All it took, as it does on here, is 'I think or In My Opinion', before it looked like he was stating facts.

 

[candycane]

I'm sure Super will take note of what has been said. I hope a line is now drawn under it and he, and others, can continue giving us the information about upcoming TSVs. I find it all useful and I'm sure everyone else does as well.

CC

 

[donna255]

By the way, on the Clinique front. They have signed a deal and will be available in Marks and Spencer now.

 

[SisterBliss]

By the way, on the Clinique front. They have signed a deal and will be available in Marks and Spencer now.

 

[Sazza]

So if SCW had put “ I think” or something similar before his post you would have taken that as an opinion not fact, is that correct?
Let’s hope he does in the future to avoid all this and get on with what he loves to do for us.

I'm sure Super will take note of what has been said. I hope a line is now drawn under it and he, and others, can continue giving us the information about upcoming TSVs. I find it all useful and I'm sure everyone else does as well.

CC

Yes SCW knows exactly what the rules are.

 

[SisterBliss]

Shouldn't this read:

"In my opinion, SCW knows exactly what the rules are" - since, unless one possesses super powers, one cannot possibly 'know' what another persons knowledge (as in retained information) is?


Unless, of course, you have recieved confirmation from SCW of same (?)

 

[Sazza]

Shouldn't this read:

"In my opinion, SCW knows exactly what the rules are" - since, unless one possesses super powers, one cannot possibly 'know' what another persons knowledge (as in retained information) is?


Unless, of course, you have recieved confirmation from SCW of same (?)

As I said there is a long history to this issue so we do know that SCW knows the rules.

 

[llloyd]

Yes SCW knows exactly what the rules are.

I am a member of this forum & I don’t recall where to read the rules that I should be abiding by.
Could these be posted as I do not want to fall foul of them or any of my posts be misinterpreted as they are typed & not spoken.

 

[SisterBliss]

I am a member of this forum & I don’t recall where to read the rules that I should be abiding by.
Could these be posted as I do not want to fall foul of them or any of my posts be misinterpreted as they are typed & not spoken.

That would be really helpful. I actually asked where the rules were, some time ago, & was told that 'there aren't any'

That would be really helpful. I actually asked where the rules were, some time ago, & was told that 'there aren't any'

....hence my bamboozlement.

 

[SisterBliss]

As I said there is a long history to this issue so we do know that SCW knows the rules.

Respectfully, & bearing in mind post #69 the above is bizarre rhetoric.

 

[Sazza]

I am a member of this forum & I don’t recall where to read the rules that I should be abiding by.
Could these be posted as I do not want to fall foul of them or any of my posts be misinterpreted as they are typed & not spoken.

That would be really helpful. I actually asked where the rules were, some time ago, & was told that 'there aren't any'


....hence my bamboozlement.

Respectfully, & bearing in mind post #69 the above is bizarre rhetoric.

@Graham has never had a page of rules on here and I very much doubt he has any intention to create one now.

As I said there is a long history and @Graham and I do know that SCW knows the rules.

We don't want to have to close this thread but we will if we have to so please time to draw a line here.

 

[llloyd]

@Graham has never had a page of rules on here and I very much doubt he has any intention to create one now.

As I said there is a long history and @Graham and I do know that SCW knows the rules.

We don't want to have to close this thread but we will if we have to so please time to draw a line here.

Does your response not contradict , SCW knows the rules , but Graham doesn’t have a page of rules.

 

[Sazza]

Does your response not contradict , SCW knows the rules , but Graham doesn’t have a page of rules.

No it doesn't. You do not know what conversations happen or have happened in past privately.

Now please time to draw a line. We won't be responding further and we will close this thread if we have to.

 

[Dream Girl]

I have a query regarding the EL moisturiser. Looking on Boots website it comes in Normal/Combination or Dry. How are we supposed to know what the Estee Lauder one is on QVC? The jars look the same apart from the one for Dry Skin saying broad spectrum. The Normal/Combination is no good for me.

Edit: Just looking again at the pics on Boots and the description on the front of the jars, it looks like this one might be for Normal/Combination. That's a bit daft having that one in the set isn't it, surely it should be the Dry one as your skin gets dryer as you get older.

Was wondering as I didn’t watch the presentations during the day did the brand ambassador address the cream option at all, or did any of the presenters answer on air, folks questions posted on the web site?

 

[Suki 1]

Thank you I’m not getting on with all the Sxxx load of Prai I ordered the neck creams have already been binned

Could you not have returned them?

 

[donna255]

Was wondering as I didn’t watch the presentations during the day did the brand ambassador address the cream option at all, or did any of the presenters answer on air, folks questions posted on the web site?

Further, up this thread, seems the confirmed it was the oily/combi version in the TSV.

 

[Noni]

Further, up this thread, seems the confirmed it was the oily/combi version in the TSV.

I saw the midnight launch and the lady demonstrating said that it is the normal/combination. It is a shame that we were not given the option of the dry cream but the advance night repair serum is very hydrating. I mainly used to use Estée Lauder advance night repair before I was introduced to the Decleor oils on QVC and now I have gone back to the advance night repair due to the fantastic offers on QVC and the demise of Decleor.