Anti-MLM Zealots: Ignorant & Vindictive

Appears Chrispy and Heiney are having a field say over at scam.com promoting MLM as the wonderful industry it is. Gawd, Heiney is even quoting Clements as a source of reference to legitimize the business.

Quote:

---

Thanks for providing the link PROVING once and for all that you're (as I suspected) an Anti-MLM zealot, convinced that ALL MLM's are scams.

The links provided by you, indicate (wrongly) that ALL MLM's are nothing but "product based pyramids", doomed to fail, by design, blah, blah, blah...

Just as I thought.

Here's ONE link for you...& a brief excerpt...

Quote:

---

Anti-MLM Zealots tend to come in two flavors: Ignorant or vindictive. In other words, they've either never actually participated in MLM themselves (thus have adopted someone else's opinion as their own, or simply guessed at their conclusions), or they have participated and failed at it. Would you take marriage advice from a guy who was recently divorced? Or, worse, has never even had a girlfriend? Would you take golf lessons from someone who shot in the 120s, or who never played golf - no matter how much they claimed they had "studied and analyzed" the game?

---

(link to Lenny's website)

Nice try, zealot.

Another Anti-MLM zealot, exposed!

What's next, is the Earth flat to!? The moon landing is a cover-up/conspiracy?!

Try the Quatloos forum, it suits you better.

---

If that doesn't want to make you vomit...

Not only is Clements article entitled "The Anti-MLM Zealots", the windbag stretches it out to a eleven part series!

If Clements being an Administrator and running the forum at scam.com isn't enough to dry up traffic, giving those two jackasses carte blanche to post whatever stupid **** they want sure as heck will.

I've often wondered:

What percentage of M.L.Ms need to be dishonest, deceitful, immoral or downright illegal and/or contain elements of dishonesty, deceitful, immorality or downright illegality before one is entitled to conclude that "most" M.L.M.s ARE "scams" ???

It might be helpful if someone/anyone could include what he/she would consider worthy of being labeled a "scam" when he or she posts an inquiry.

Many, if not most, M.L.M.s are convoluted and deceptive by nature (and design) making a single "scam/notscam" judgment impossible.

I would say to make it simple, that because of the comp plans that reward recruiting / pyramiding that all MLMs are inherent fraud as the deck is not equal for all participants and that translates into all MLMs basically being scams. Very few manage to do any significant retailing to folks outside of the pyramid compensation plan, so it becomes apparent that purchases are often nothing more than the price for a spot in said pyramid.

And, us anti-MLM zealots in most cases want to protect the public and see others aren't harmed financially, so Lenny can call us ignorant and vindictive, but the reality is we are hurting his bottom line with facts and the truth!

Soapboxmom

I responded on the site. I said the post was baiting and, by Lenny's definition, Kerry was being a troll. Of course, I don't think Len's coming back. He hasn't been on the site (that I've seen) since it's gone back up, but maybe he's in some small town in the middle of nowhere that has no internet connection. Of course, I have lived in several small town's and have always been able to find a wi-fi connection for free. But hey - that's just me.

I think it's actually worthwhile to occasionally break down and analyse some of Loudmouth Lennys' diatribes.

Take this one, for example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clements

Anti-MLM Zealots tend to come in two flavors: Ignorant or vindictive. In other words, they've either never actually participated in MLM themselves (thus have adopted someone else's opinion as their own, or simply guessed at their conclusions), or they have participated and failed at it. Would you take marriage advice from a guy who was recently divorced? Or, worse, has never even had a girlfriend? Would you take golf lessons from someone who shot in the 120s, or who never played golf - no matter how much they claimed they had "studied and analyzed" the game?

---

only TWO flavours, Clements ???

TWO ????

The USA has a current population of 320+ MILLION people, but there are only TWO reasons people would be anti M.L.M. ????

At least when he was posting his diatribes on the JREF forum in favour of his M.L.M. cronies, Clements claimed there were not just two, but THREE reasons people are anti M.L.M.

320+ MILLION people and every one of them different.

But only two or three reasons for them to be anti M.L.M. (according to the guru)

As far as asking whether a thinking person would take lessons from someone who hasn't played golf, what sort of diversionary nonsensical question is that ????

Is Clements suggesting that someone who has played golf badly makes a better instructor than someone who has never played golf, but understands the technical aspects of the game ???

Or is he suggesting that having been a successful golfer automatically qualifies someone as being able to pass along his or her skills ????

Would Tiger Woods employ a swing coach or putting coach based on his or her personal achievements as a golfer or his or her ability to improve Tigers' game ????

Are all sporting coaches former competitors ???

Similarly, does one have to spend time as a criminal before being able to identify criminal behaviour ??? Have lost money before being able to recognize a losing proposition ??? Run a HYIP ponzi scam to know one ????

Quote:

---

Would you take marriage advice from a guy who was recently divorced? Or, worse, has never even had a girlfriend?

---

Well, yes, numb nuts, I would.

As have millions of other people gone to premarital counseling by a priest.

And no, I'm not RC, but I still went, for reasons I don't wish to get into.

Yeah, Hein was trying to respond to my post. I pretty much knew that was what he was going to post, and even said in the post what he was going to reply with. Those are the answers he gave. Even when I gave him a chance by predicting what he was going to post to prove me otherwise, he replied verbatim anyways.

I give up over there...it's pointless.

" Would you take marriage advice from a guy who was recently divorced? Or, worse, has never even had a girlfriend? Would you take golf lessons from someone who shot in the 120s, or who never played golf - no matter how much they claimed they had "studied and analyzed" the game? "

Would you take the advice of the well-respected and honored Dr Bob Seligman - who stated HIS MLM was the best opportunity in the Universe? I mean this guy studied at Oxford and got his PhD from Harvard! What's not to trust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BruceShuell

Would you take the advice of the well-respected and honored Dr Bob Seligman - who stated HIS MLM was the best opportunity in the Universe? I mean this guy studied at Oxford and got his PhD from Harvard! What's not to trust?

---

MLMs and Travel: A Bad Mix: The Good Doctor Seligman Exaggerates

MLMs and Travel: A Bad Mix: More BS From Bob Seligman (no PhD)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BruceShuell

" Would you take marriage advice from a guy who was recently divorced? Or, worse, has never even had a girlfriend? Would you take golf lessons from someone who shot in the 120s, or who never played golf - no matter how much they claimed they had "studied and analyzed" the game? "

Would you take the advice of the well-respected and honored Dr Bob Seligman - who stated HIS MLM was the best opportunity in the Universe? I mean this guy studied at Oxford and got his PhD from Harvard! What's not to trust?

---

Someone's own ability to golf for example, doesn't mean the person cannot be a great teacher. Someone who got divorced might be able to give great marriage advice. You might be able to learn what not to do.

Regards to Bob Seligman, does he stand to profit if you join his MLM? I bet he does. It's not trust, it's due diligence.