Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
LMAO LMAO:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Ignorant Ignorant:  0
Moron Moron:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53

Thread: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Looks like someone deleted 1-4 pages of this thread. LM was called to task for her false medical claims, woeful lack of knowledge about basic anatomy, and inaccurate views on how the FDA works.
    FDA defeated in federal court...
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    The thread was cross posted, and remains intact. ( I only saw it in the medical section today-- as it was bumped up with the now false accusation that the thread had been scrubbed) It is also in the MLM section, but is now back a page or two. I had remembered 2 posters taking the opposite side, but that was only in the MLM section, the main one I read.

    Sorry for wasting so much space on the Interwebs with these two posts.
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Emet View Post
    Looks like someone deleted 1-4 pages of this thread. LM was called to task for her false medical claims, woeful lack of knowledge about basic anatomy, and inaccurate views on how the FDA works.
    FDA defeated in federal court...
    Well if you are Ashanda, then you already know you went to the wrong forum and that the thread you were looking for is in the MLM forum and intact.

    FDA defeated in federal court...

    Care to throw any more false accusations my way?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Of course, you aren't Ashanda. You are just some schmuck with an axe to grind.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojustask View Post
    Well if you are Ashanda, then you already know you went to the wrong forum and that the thread you were looking for is in the MLM forum and intact.

    FDA defeated in federal court...

    Care to throw any more false accusations my way?
    Actually, I didn't throw any false accusations your way. I posted here as there were already quotes associated with that thread in this thread about you. I believe I said here that someone deleted them, and that you had been called to task for your assertions.

    If I thought you had deleted them, I would have said so.

    I could take your statement here and say you are accusing me of being Ashanda, but I won't.

    I am Spartacus.
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wish you were here!
    Posts
    143
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    No. I am Spartacus!
    "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
    Because then it doesn't matter, you’re a mile away and you have his shoes!"

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    And before you start gloating over that thread, read the entire thing. In the end, only Chris N decided that it was not OK for me to have my opinions, or my beliefs (at least I will walk my talk) whether they are right, wrong or even agreed with them.

    It's the small minded that can't allow others the same freedoms they themselves expect to receive.

    Even smaller minded are those who will try to make a big deal and a villian out of people whose belief doesn't match theirs and think that somehow makes them better.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Emet View Post
    Actually, I didn't throw any false accusations your way. I posted here as there were already quotes associated with that thread in this thread about you. I believe I said here that someone deleted them, and that you had been called to task for your assertions.

    If I thought you had deleted them, I would have said so.

    I could take your statement here and say you are accusing me of being Ashanda, but I won't.

    I am Spartacus.
    Then I apologize to you, Emet. Will you allow me to be wrong in my assumption and forgive my false accusation?

    Spartacus? Did you even post to that thread? Ashanda was very well informed and didn't twist or insult a person if
    they weren't exactly right about what they said. He was smart enough to actually see what people were trying to say
    even if they stumbled in trying to say it.

    And he posted good information about the FDA.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
    No. I am Spartacus!
    You aren't Mike! on both sites? LOL

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojustask View Post
    Of course, you aren't Ashanda. You are just some schmuck with an axe to grind.
    A schmuck is an assault on my character and ad hominem, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Some people who have actually met me may agree with you.

    I have neither an axe nor a grinder, and I don't believe you will find any evidence of that. I have a POV and opinions, and am not beyond using snark and sarcasm to make a point. But I really have no axe to grind.

    Did you even post to that thread?
    Irrelevant. It should be obvious that I read it, and that is all that matters.

    ...and didn't twist or insult a person if
    they weren't exactly right about what they said.
    (my bolding)

    I'm not sure what you mean about this, but if it's my statement:

    LM was called to task for her false medical claims, woeful lack of knowledge about basic anatomy, and inaccurate views on how the FDA works.
    I stand by that statement--it is factual. If it's insulting, well, compared to:

    You are just some schmuck with an axe to grind.
    Well, there is no comparison.

    Then I apologize to you, Emet. Will you allow me to be wrong in my assumption and forgive my false accusation?
    Yes I will and I do.

    I think if you peruse my posts here or on other forums, you will be hard pressed to find me hurling ad hominem attacks or using vulgar or insulting language. Something I post may be interpreted as an insult, but there really is a difference between the two. (You are clearly ill informed vs. You are an idiot)

    My posting style is to present facts and opinions in a relatively non offensive way. They are often glossed over and ignored. (sniff) But that's okay with me.

    Emet
    (the mild and meek)
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojustask View Post
    And before you start gloating over that thread, read the entire thing. In the end, only Chris N decided that it was not OK for me to have my opinions, or my beliefs (at least I will walk my talk) whether they are right, wrong or even agreed with them.

    It's the small minded that can't allow others the same freedoms they themselves expect to receive.

    Even smaller minded are those who will try to make a big deal and a villian out of people whose belief doesn't match theirs and think that somehow makes them better.
    Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, BUT with the caveat that it doesnt give them the right to use their personal beliefs and opinions (and personal financial wellbeing) to persuade sufferers of terminal illnesses to try unproven and therefore possibly dangerous alternative treatments, instead of their safer and proven treatments - whether they are conventional medical or proven dietary treatments. Selling false hope is cruel and dangerous. When a dietary supplement or other product is discovered to cure any life threatening illness, it will be published worldwide and prescribed worldwide. It will not remain the "secret formula" of an MLM business that can give you "financial freedom".

    I guess villany is a relative term.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    737
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by alasycia View Post
    Of course everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, BUT with the caveat that it doesnt give them the right to use their personal beliefs and opinions (and personal financial wellbeing) to persuade sufferers of terminal illnesses to try unproven and therefore possibly dangerous alternative treatments, instead of their safer and proven treatments - whether they are conventional medical or proven dietary treatments.
    Leaving personal financial well being out of the equation, what happens in the case where "safer and proven treatments" aren't effective?

    Somebody that's desperate is rightfully willing to try anything.

    Said "cure" may be unproven and therefore possibly dangerous, but isn't it worth the risk to the sufferer?

    And how did "safer and proven treatments" become safer and proven treatments in the first place?

    At one time they had to be unproven, and therefore possibly dangerous before being tested.

    Somebody had to be a guinea pig.

    All kinds of examples come to mind where supposedly safe and proven drugs didn't turn out to be safer and proven (thalidomide).

    Just askin', for the sake of discussion, ya know?
    Len Clements: Mensa Society (155 IQ)

    Stephen Hawking: "People who boast about their IQ are losers."

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Bunkum View Post
    Leaving personal financial well being out of the equation, what happens in the case where "safer and proven treatments" aren't effective?
    People always have the right to choose an alternative therapy, even if there is a safer and proven treatment.

    Somebody that's desperate is rightfully willing to try anything.
    Yes, and even if they're not desperate, they have the right to choose anything they wish to.

    Said "cure" may be unproven and therefore possibly dangerous, but isn't it worth the risk to the sufferer?
    As long as there is full disclosure, then there is no problem. The problem with many alternative therapies is that not only is there not full disclosure, there is misinformation and factual inaccuracies. That prevents people from making informed decisions.

    And how did "safer and proven treatments" become safer and proven treatments in the first place?
    Over time and with science based evidence (data).

    At one time they had to be unproven, and therefore possibly dangerous before being tested.
    Yes, but it's not that simple. Treatment modalities, be they interventional or pharmacologic, usually begin with an idea--move to a testing ground (test tube, petri dish, robotics or scientists practicing on non living things such as fruits)--then animals--then people. There have been many cases where a modality was immediately suspended when the results with humans were immediately devastating and unexpected.

    But the same is true of all endeavors in science and technology, when humans are involved.

    Somebody had to be a guinea pig.
    After the test tube, the guinea pig, eventually it will be a person. Informed consent papers spell out all of the details and risks.

    All kinds of examples come to mind where supposedly safe and proven drugs didn't turn out to be safer and proven (thalidomide).
    I can no longer find the article that was posted due to word censoring at that other web site. Even looking where I thought it might be yielded no results. But at least some of the article's points were preserved, even though the gist of the srticle was about the FDA:

    The FDA isn't weak on safety. The problem is that some drugs expose safety issues only after being on the market for years, long past the FDA's review and approval process. Critics think this implicates the FDA.

    2002 Associated Press story illustrated their point of view: "One in five new drugs has serious side effects that do not show up until well after the medicine has received approval, according to a study that exposes what one researcher calls an alarming game of medical Russian roulette."

    The unstated implication is that the FDA could and should approve only safe drugs. How are drugs deemed safe? Well, only by long-term usage by many millions of patients. Wolfe even admits this. But giving drugs to a large number of patients for long-term use before they are proven safe is deemed by some to be "Russian roulette."

    So we have a Catch-22. The only feasible alternatives are never to use any new drug or to use new drugs that may have problems that will show up only after lots of experience. Which is better: the possibility of health or the guarantee of illness?

    The FDA has taken a "better safe than sorry" approach and Wolfe will forge an even "safer" approach. Wolfe and the FDA shouldn't forget who the real enemy is: disease.
    The entire post is located here.

    Thalidomide makes a comeback

    Thalidomide
    Last edited by Emet; 06-30-2010 at 08:05 PM.
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Bunkum View Post
    Leaving personal financial well being out of the equation, what happens in the case where "safer and proven treatments" aren't effective?

    Somebody that's desperate is rightfully willing to try anything.

    Said "cure" may be unproven and therefore possibly dangerous, but isn't it worth the risk to the sufferer?

    And how did "safer and proven treatments" become safer and proven treatments in the first place?

    At one time they had to be unproven, and therefore possibly dangerous before being tested.

    Somebody had to be a guinea pig.

    All kinds of examples come to mind where supposedly safe and proven drugs didn't turn out to be safer and proven (thalidomide).

    Just askin', for the sake of discussion, ya know?
    Of course its' the patients right to try "unproven and therefore possibly dangerous" treatments.

    The problem arises when "unproven and therefore possibly dangerous" has become ""MISREPRESENTED, unproven and therefore possibly dangerous" treatments.

    There is a vast difference between someone saying "You know what, I THINK XXXXXXXX will cure diabetes/cancer/lupus" or "Theoretically, XXXXXXXX should be able to cure diabetes/cancer/lupuscure diabetes and someone saying "XXXXXXX WILL cure cancer/diabetes/lupus"

    What's even more fundamentally misleading is the claim that ANYTHING will "cure" cancer/diabetes/lupus.

    Arrest or retard or put into temporary remission or alleviate the symptoms of, maybe.

    But "cure" ????

    There's not a bloody thing on this planet currently known to "cure" any of them.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    People always have the right to choose an alternative therapy, even if there is a safer and proven treatment
    .


    Yes, and even if they're not desperate, they have the right to choose anything they wish to.


    As long as there is full disclosure, then there is no problem. The problem with many alternative therapies is that not only is there not full disclosure, there is misinformation and factual inaccuracies. That prevents people from making informed decisions.
    Great post Emet and it makes the point with far greater clarity than I ever did. (I'm definitely not coherent when I'm spitting fur and feathers.lol)

    You've pointed out the crux of the matter. People need to be able to make informed decisions. As LRM has pointed out - there is no cure for cancer, HIV, Aids and several other illnesses. There are alternative treatments offered, and some appear to be more helpful than others. However, indications of their effectiveness are generally based on empirical scientific evidence and testing and not the word of the saleman or woman.

    The sickening element of some alternative treatments appears when the people who make the claims about their effectiveness are neither qualified to make them, make them based on parroting other people's unverified claims, and give false hope to sufferers, when their principal objective is to make money and not cure illness.

    The outrageous claims made by some of the purveyors of food supplements and jungle juices, some of which were quoted earlier by LRM, are the things that anger people who are involved directly or indirectly with sufferers of these foul diseases.

    This is not intended to take the thread wildly off-topic. Scam.com's Lady Mod has just defended people's rights to "belief" and I understand that to include their right to sell untested, unproven "cures" for incurable diseases on the basis that they will in fact help them when their existing treatments do not. Under those circumstances, whilst I defend everyone's rights to believe in what they like, it is difficult to condone their rights to sell false hope because of something written in a businesses promotional package. There are times when it is decent to keep your beliefs to yourself.

    And NO I don't believe that you can leave the "personal financial wellbeing" motivation of the seller out of the equation, especially when the lady in question is taking the moral high ground.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Thanks for that, alasycia.

    And NO I don't believe that you can leave the "personal financial wellbeing" motivation of the seller out of the equation, especially when the lady in question is taking the moral high ground.
    I understand what you're saying. For me, it runs deeper. Whether it's for money, ego, grandiosity, delusion, or even a desire to genuinely help people, it is simply immoral to misinform and mislead people for any cause or purpose. When their lives and/or well being is at stake, it's downright criminal.
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Emet View Post
    Thanks for that, alasycia.


    I understand what you're saying. For me, it runs deeper. Whether it's for money, ego, grandiosity, delusion, or even a desire to genuinely help people, it is simply immoral to misinform and mislead people for any cause or purpose. When their lives and/or well being is at stake, it's downright criminal.
    For me,

    it doesn't need to go any further than "someone" posted "something" on a forum designed for discussing scams and that "something" is incorrect

    If "Sojustask" had posted on "alt26 natural therapies" on Usenet, or the "CrackpotTheories.com" forum, to use the words of the poet: "quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

    But,

    she didn't.

    In fact, she posted on SCAM.com which, until recent times was a forum on which posters could openly discuss what constituted a "scam" and how such definitions related to various situations/businesses/people/circumstances.

    Let's forget, for one moment, all the rationalizing, justifying and blame laying taking place and concentrate one one single aspect of the statement in question, before moving on.

    "There is a cure for diabetes"

    Simple enough statement.

    Let's begin analyzing that simple six word statement by asking the simple questions:

    "There are several forms of disease commonly referred to as "diabetes"

    Is the OP referring to "Diabetes mellitus" or "Diabetes Insipidus" ????

    If, in fact, Sojustask is referring to the more common "Diabetes mellitus", to which of the separate and distinct sub groups is she referring ????

    1) Insulin Dependent diabetes AKA Juvenile onset diabetes AKA Type 1 diabetes AKA sugar diabetes ?

    2) Non insulin dependent diabetes AKA Type 2 diabetes AKA adult onset diabetes ?

    3) Gestational diabetes ?

    Let's just clarify this teensy, weensy point in her original statement, shall we, before we move on to actually proving or disproving any-bloody-thing.

    Or, could it be that "Sojustask" is aware of some form of natural therapy "cure all" which can act on and cure all forms of the disease commonly referred to as "diabetes" ????

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Sojustask - where are you? This is a discussion forum. Please comment.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Ok, I see your points and I was wrong to be so general. I apologize. I did try to explain that these were my experiences and what I've personally seen. I did say that you have to take a hell of a lot of supplements and that it wouldn't happen as quickly and I don't promote the sales of any MLM nutritional supplement. I don't support any of them, even Amways is mediocre at best. I don't purchase any of them and I get rather put off by any mention of special formula's or non disclusure of what proprietary ingredients are and how much.

    Though I've experienced a cure in my life via alternative therapies, which I spelled out, my using the word "cure" was probably misleading to those who would take offence to that word.

    I'm sorry. I'll post this on the other thread as well if that will make you happy, but at the moment there is a more important thread that some people and I would like your participation in and a vote on. What the hell does George want for this site? And I don't want to pop the other thread above it. But I will post my apology to the thread in question this weekend after the other one takes off.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    76
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    I've been working some 12 hour days at the clinic. And there is a pissing match on scam that I've been moderating and talking to some moderators involved about. I didn't have time to get back here until this morning and right now, I've got to get ready for work. I have a test I must take tonight if I can't do it at lunch so I might not get back here until tomorrow. And then I have 11 chapters left to read and one last test before I take a certification test in September. With a busy life, training a new Patient Care Technician and Receptionist, I'm getting a little pressed for time to discuss things on forums. Sorry.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    19,835
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojustask View Post

    I'm sorry. I'll post this on the other thread as well if that will make you happy,
    Apology gracefully given and thoroughly accepted.

    And, there's no need to post an apology anywhere else.

    What would or would not make ME "happy" is irrelevant.

    As always in this arena, I like to think my only concern is for those affected, or likely to be affected.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Emet View Post
    Thanks for that, alasycia.


    I understand what you're saying. For me, it runs deeper. Whether it's for money, ego, grandiosity, delusion, or even a desire to genuinely help people, it is simply immoral to misinform and mislead people for any cause or purpose. When their lives and/or well being is at stake, it's downright criminal.
    I agree with your argument 100%, Emet. However, as far as this forum discussion goes, we have been talking about false product claims made by a moderator of a supposed anti scam forum. The topic of treatments for life threatening diseases is an enormous one, but in this case we are talking about someone who is defending the sale of unproven (and in many cases un-tested) products to desparate souls for profit motives.

    The people who push these products are frequently zealots of their companies (often MLMs) and products and some are passionate salesmen (buy one and find three more people to buy one and, hey presto, you cure cancer/diabetes/HIV/Aids etc and get rich in the process. They are not in the business of healthcare. Unlike other treatments which are generally withdrawn if found to be damaging, they persist with the sale of their supplements in spite of health warnings. To my mind, they are no different from the Tobacco companies who sell a highly addictive and now proven cancerogenic product and refuse to withdraw it from the market nor disclose its composition.

    If you think that the quacks that believe in their useless products are criminal, then what do you call these people? They are ten times worse.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    Posted this whilst sojustask was posting her response.

    Ditto LRM's reply. I look forward to seeing you crushing the false claims of the promoters of food supplements etc on scam.com

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    In fact, she posted on SCAM.com which, until recent times was a forum on which posters could openly discuss what constituted a "scam" and how such definitions related to various situations/businesses/people/circumstances.
    This post is offered respectfully:
    1. Do you believe that scamdotcom has ever had any respectability as a web site?

    My opinion: No. Google rankings, membership or post numbers does not equate to respectability. The site is so littered with profanity, lunatic ranting from both sides of any debate, with very little credible evidence to support claims.

    2. Do you believe that misinformation on a site such as this is dangerous?

    My opinion: No. LM has no more credibility than any other poster on any other forum or blog who posts wild, unsubstantiated claims. And the Internet is littered with garbage. The dangerous folks, IMO, are the ones with degrees (even if they are woo degrees), that post cogent, calm claims with links or quotes to woo science "studies" that are potentially dangerous to a reader.

    3. Do you believe your responses in this thread about diabetes successfully refutes her claims?

    In my opinion: While you posted accurate facts about diabetes, the best way to refute garbage is to present your argument and borrow heavily from reliable medical sources, using both quotes and links.

    I read the thread on the MLM forum about the FDA, and one poster did just that (I have been accused of being that poster, but as i previously stated, I am Spartacus). He didn't address the false medical information you did here, but he gave the reader clear facts about the FDA. He didn't engage in directly attacking any of the posters who posted garbage; he simply provided evidence that stands on its own.

    Please do not misinterpret this post as a criticism, as it is not. I too am a scientist (As Ashanda claimed to be). I also understand how many scamdotcom folks are angry right now.

    If I had chosen to respond to LM about diabetes, what constitutes cures vs. control of diseases, and why there is a difference, I would have explained that in detail, again referencing my explanations.

    Let me close by reiterating: I am not criticizing anyone or any post per se: I am simply offering my opinion as to how I believe the best way to respond to garbage is.

    Feel free to rip my post to shreds. It is only my opinion; nothing more, nothing less.

    Respectfully,

    Emet
    Last edited by Emet; 07-01-2010 at 08:30 AM.
    A half-truth is a whole lie.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    9,233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Gee, thanks a bunch... Lady Mod

    View Poll Results: What do you want from this site?
    The Admin to step down. 6 100.00%
    The SuperMod to step down. 1 16.67%
    The owner to take more interest in his site. 2 33.33%
    Get rid of the MLM forum altogether. 0 0%
    Moderators to follow the same rules the members must. 1 16.67%
    No rules. Make this site a free for all. 0 0%


    View First Unread Thread Tools Display Modes
    #1 07-01-2010, 02:59 AM
    sojustask
    Lady Moderator- Just call me Your Majesty Join Date: Feb 2005
    Location: East Texas
    Posts: 18,271


    What the hell does George want for this site?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OK, even I have to admit that things are way out of hand around here. On one hand we have a new Admin who had some good ideas but can't seem to follow through on them without going overboard, getting in pissing matches with the Moderators and chasing them off and upsetting long standing members.

    On the other hand, the spam is still being taken care of.

    But there is a lot of threads missing in the MLM forum. People are getting their thread titles and posts edited. Members aren't really wanting to participate because they feel it's impossible to know when their posts will be edited out of the conversation next.

    So, now we've gone from an extreme where every MLM supporter was ruthlessly attacked by both Mods and members to every MLM hater is being attacked by Admin?

    Where's the balance? Where's the Nuetrality? Where's the fairness? What happened to controversy, everyone getting a voice and runaway threads? And why are the only threads that are running away those that the Admin took off track by getting involved in?

    George, where the hell are you? And what the hell do you really want for this site?

    OK, members, what do you want from this site?

    Now is the time to speak out and Len, I don't want to see dozens of posts from you on this thread justifying your actions. Nor will I be justifying any of mine, and we ALL know I've made some whopper mistakes of my own here.

    I think you overstepped yourself messing with people's posts and thread titles. That was uncalled for and unneccessary and it didn't increase your popularity one bit. So, I don't want to hear from you, and how put upon you feel. You got the berryview thread in the Internet forum, if you want a thread to air your grievances, start another. Right now, I would like to hear from members and they need to be able to do it without either one of us making them feel like they are going to be censored. We might just learn something about ourselves that we failed to learn already.

    This thread will be tolerated and so will the member's views. If greviances are petty and small minded I think the majority of those who read these threads are smart enough to see that.

    So, speak out folks. I can't guarantee you will ever get another chance like this again.
    Keep lying about us Mods Stephanie. You will continue to get butchered here and drive traffic our way. The longtime members know that is complete fiction. We rescued ChrisDoyle and his posts and made sure every voice was heard. Everyone was treated with kindness and respect. Everyone was made to feel welcome and offered any assistance and support they needed by us. Funny how George is attracted to liars and egotistical, narcissistic boneheads. You, Lenny and George all deserve one another!

    Soapboxmom

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •