Pre-Paid Legal Pre-Paid Legal's USA Today "article" Ada Oklahoma

The glowing article which was reported in usa today and mentioned in report and claimed that it was an add and cant be found online at usa today website. Here is the link where it can be read

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-08-21-founder-ceos_N.htm

The writer of orignal complain should do his or her due deligence before writing a complain.

The article to which you're referring and hyperlinked in your rebuttal refers to an article written in 2007.  It may be somewhat unclear as I gave no particular dates of the "article" in my complaint.

When I joined PPL in 2001, there was much publicity about some article in USA Today in which THEY (i.e. USA Today) endorsed the business and services of PPL.  After much searching the Net (I DID *MY* DUE DILIGENCE), I was only able to locate an AD that was taken out by some of the top distributors in PPL who were hoping that such an AD would help them capture a lion's share of the market.  If failed.....BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION!!

I attended the trainings (as we were OFTEN encouraged to do).  I hear the lectures.  They told us to NOT take out such ads.  They knew, by their experiences, that ADS did/do not work.  This particular ad speaks of "More families will sleep better having Pre-Paid Legal" or something to that effect.  THAT WAS AN AD; NOT AN "ARTICLE" IN USA TODAY!!

At the time I found this, I was very discouraged.  I was "in it to win it" and I firmly believed that "documentation beats conversation".  However, finding out that this was an AD shot holes in their credibility for me, especially since they used this as part of their "documentation".

Even though my complaint was submitted in 2007, I'd left PPL at least a year and a half earlier and the date of the hyperlinked article you submitted wasn't written until MONTHS after my complaint.  So, the AD and this article aren't related.

Perhaps YOU, Mr./Ms./Mrs. Anonymous, should have done YOUR due diligence to get all of the facts of which "article" I was referring.