Heb even me aangenaam verpoosd met wat "gezond verstand" literatuur......
Nou..., vooruit...., even om te "pesten" dan....:
For example, I made the claim, imbedded within a much larger more poignant issue, that a high failure rate among participants does not inherently make a profession dishonest, and that the majority of people who attempt to be successful doctors, lawyers, actors, politicians, or baseball players also fail, yet no one claims these occupations are scams.
Rather than address the main issue being debated, she responded with her favorite comeback: “Unsubstantiated anecdotal claims.
Where’s your evidence?” Countless times Ruth has used this clever “
Prove it” response to avoid having to provide a response. Even in cases like this, when asking someone to show evidence that most who attempt to become pro baseball players fail at it makes her look astoundingly foolish and desperate.
And what do you suppose she did after I went through the tedious, time wasting process of digging up the data to prove my claim about doctors and lawyers?
That’s right –
she completely ignored my response and dropped the point.
To appreciate the silliness of Ruth’s penchant for requiring proof, here are some other statements she demanded “verifiable evidence” of: “You get out of it what you put into it” (how would one even begin to “verify” this?); “so many people (on the Survivor message board) complain and moan” (she demanded a total count of people involved, and the number who were complaining); and “There are goods and bads in any business” (
she actually asked for “facts” to back up that claim!).
One pro-MLM poster claimed he made over $100,000 last year at age 30, and Ruth responded by demanding to see his tax return and a copy of his birth certificate!
According to the forum’s co-dictator “PW,” only “documentation can serve as evidence.” Yet, when it comes to virtually all of their anti-MLM data, personal testimony and hear-say are entirely acceptable. But then, he openly admits, without the slightest reservation; “There is a double standard with regard to pro-MLMers… argumentation in favor of MLM are not permitted here.”
Every positive portrayal of MLM is arrogantly assumed to be a “trolling” attempt to gather prospects……..
These are the kinds of silly games one plays when dealing with MLM “survivors.” They never admit they’re wrong, no matter how obviously they’ve been busted, and their attempts to avoid appearing so often times becomes ridiculous.
Noot van SBI.
Herkenbaar voor het “Higherlevel” forum, wat wordt gerund door Nils de Witte. Gerelateerd aan Zibb.nl
Men wordt letterlijk verzocht om kritische commentaren te geven op mlm…, maar positieve posting worden verwijderd!!
Anti-MLM Zealots are rare.
For an industry that’s been around for over half-a-century, composed of over 2,000 companies and with well over ten million participants in the United States alone, you would think there would be more.
Especially
considering how many “victims” have been so ruthlessly abused by us, at least according to the Anti-MLM Zealots.
But the fact is, there are really only four.
Robert FitzPatrick, Ruth Carter, and Jon Taylor have all written books on the subject, and I’ve included Dean Van Druff in this list only because, thanks to the internet, the one little anti-MLM article he wrote fifteen years ago has probably been read by more people than the other three subjects combined.
There arguments against MLM, although sometimes well dressed, stand up poorly to scrutiny, and virtually across the board are focused on the same two or three companies (the easiest targets).
Readers of this column have asked why various
other anti-MLM types have not been mentioned in this series.
First, the four I have featured have, to varying degrees, caused some damage to the standing and credibility of this form of business. The others I’m asked about have not.
They are little known outside of MLM circles – and I’d like to keep it that way. No sense giving them more attention than they are already not getting.
Not that their case is any stronger. In fact, that’s the better reason why I’ve ignored them – for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over.
Is it fair to blame the high failure rate on the MLM concept or model?
Well, what if ten people were given free memberships to a gym which even included a personal trainer?
--Five went once or twice, saw no immediate results and quit.
--Two went several times but never followed the advice of their trainer and used all the equipment wrong, then quit.
--Two others never even showed up once.
--Only one went on a regular basis, followed the prescribed work out regimen, and after a year gained the body and vitality they desired.
Then an anti-gym zealot comes along (also 4??? Econometrist..., Maarschalk..., mlmangel... en Waltertje?? Jij bent "te klein, Joopje!
) and claims that 90% of all those that signed up for the gym membership and trainer failed to receive any significant benefits.
Although technically true, its not the whole story. Anti-MLM zealots are not telling the whole story.
(A classic example of this is the "Payout Distribution Study" attempted by Jon Taylor. When he requested payout data from 60 MLM companies he required "even those who only bought a starter kit whether or not they have done anything with it... be included in these statistics, including those who have not sold anything or quit, even after one day.")
My point is, why would Taylor want to include those who didn’t go to the gym in a study about the benefits of going to the gym?
Eat your heart out..., boys...
(Heb je goed op gelet.., Waltertje??
for the most part they just parrot Fitzpatrick, Carter, Taylor and Van Druff. It’s always the same, tired, arguments, over and over)
Fijne avond verder..., So be it (gevonden op prikpaginaforum
www.marketwaveinc.com/articles/zealots01.asp )
) and claims that 90% of all those that signed up for the gym membership and trainer failed to receive any significant benefits. 
)
