MLM

[icerat]

The Cruz paper was demonstrated to be peer reviewed and therefor academic as well both here and at wikipedia.

Which is pretty much what I just said. It's still poor quality, as evidenced by clear errors which even you have acknowledged

Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.

The article does not appear to have been published in the journal. Even then you seem to be unaware that journals also publish non-peer reviewed articles and commentary.

Face it the realible sources and peer reviewed publications are against you. This is reality, deal with it.

Let's say I accept your claims about these books/articles (which for most of them, I don't). Are you saying a handful of articles trump not only a multitude of other peer-reviewed and otherwise reliable sources, but also the actual legal system(s) which get to define this stuff?

Talk about cherry-picking!

Do I really have to start listing the literally hundreds of reliable sources referring to legitimate MLMs as a legitimate business model? Really?

 

[icerat]

But funny how you completely ignored what the issue under dispute was about, so let's try again. Stop dodging and -

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Do I really have to start listing the literally hundreds of reliable sources referring to legitimate MLMs as a legitimate business model? Really?

This is a logical fallacy. Everyone believes in Jesus as well, does that make christianity true?

Bottom line is that some MLM's are legal even though they are pyramid schemes. Legality doesn't and shouldn't convey any confidence in a business model. For anyone who believes in liberty there are plenty of things which are and will be legal that aren't a good idea.

 

[icerat]

This is a logical fallacy. Everyone believes in Jesus as well, does that make christianity true?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

You're a piece of work NewtonTrino. Maximara is the one who thinks that because SOME people say something that makes it true, but not a peep out of you. I point out that MANY people say something else, without any actual claim attached, and you leap on me claiming a logical fallacy.

Bottom line is that some MLM's are legal even though they are pyramid schemes.

Bottom line is that is a contradiction.

United States: FTC explicity states "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police state "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Australia: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Switzerland: Swiss government says "pyramid schemes are illegal"

European Union: EU says "operating or promoting a pyramid schemes is banned"

Any particular country you'd like me to check?

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

 

[NewtonTrino]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

You're a piece of work NewtonTrino. Maximara is the one who thinks that because SOME people say something that makes it true, but not a peep out of you. I point out that MANY people say something else, without any actual claim attached, and you leap on me claiming a logical fallacy.

Those aren't even remotely comparable situations

Bottom line is that is a contradiction.

United States: FTC explicity states "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Canada; Royal Canadian Mounted Police state "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Australia: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states "pyramid schemes are illegal"

Switzerland: Swiss government says "pyramid schemes are illegal"

European Union: EU says "operating or promoting a pyramid schemes is banned"

Any particular country you'd like me to check?

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

I never said all pyramid schemes are illegal. I've said that I don't think they should be illegal because I believe in liberty.

I've also said amway is clearly legal and that it's still a pyramid scheme. I'm not letting "the government" of any country define pyramid scheme using law. What definition the government uses for legal purposes simply has no bearing on reality.

Just to be absolutely clear there is no relationship between something being legal and it being a good idea. Just as there is no clear relationship between something being illegal and it being a bad idea.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

 

[maximara]

Just to be absolutely clear there is no relationship between something being legal and it being a good idea. Just as there is no clear relationship between something being illegal and it being a bad idea.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

Right. Slavery was once legal but I would think most people would say that slavery is a bad thing.

Conversely unless you have been under a rock I think everyone knows the mess Prohibition made in the US.

 

[maximara]

Yet Newton Trino, who leaps on a supposed "appeal to popularity" fallacy, would have us instead wrap our heads around this little scenario -

- all pyramid schemes are illegal (all A are B)
- some pyramid schemes are not illegal (some A are not B)

This assumes the first point is true which it is not. All the following call all MLMs pyramid schemes regardless of their legality. Deal with it:


Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Wiley. pp. 235. ISBN 0471272426.

Coenen, Tracy (2009). Expert Fraud Investigation: A Step-by-Step Guide. Wiley. pp. 168. ISBN 0470387963.

Ogunjobi, Timi (2008). SCAMS - and how to protect yourself from them. Tee Publishing. pp. 13-19.

Salinger (Editor), Lawrence M. (2005). Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime. 2. Sage Publishing. pp. 880. ISBN 0761930043.

 

[icerat]

I never said all pyramid schemes are illegal. I've said that I don't think they should be illegal because I believe in liberty.

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.

So amway is a pyramid scheme AND it's legal. There is no contradiction there at all.

Clearly there is.

This assumes the first point is true which it is not. All the following call all MLMs pyramid schemes regardless of their legality. Deal with it:

Which just goes to show they're not reliable sources. Or are you claiming all the OFFICIAL sources I gave above are wrong?

We remain with the following facts -

** multiple incontrovertible official sources state all pyramid schemes are illegal
** maximara and newton trino and some other sources says some pyramid schemes are not illegal
(says maximara and newton trino)

Hmmm .... decisions, decisions, who to believe when deciding on matters of law? The governments and official bodies who decide and enforce them, or a couple of folk on the 'net and a handful of minor references ....

 

[maximara]

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.

Given that the laws in some localities had to be changed so that MLMs didn't fall under the old pyramid schemes statues that would be an example of legalizing a pyramid scheme because under the old laws the MLM was a pyramid scheme.

 

[icerat]

Given that the laws in some localities had to be changed so that MLMs didn't fall under the old pyramid schemes statues that would be an example of legalizing a pyramid scheme because under the old laws the MLM was a pyramid scheme.

so what your saying is your sources are just outdated, even though they were all published decades after FTC vs Amway ....

 

[icerat]

oh, and still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

come on now, don't be shy. You went on a multiple post rant calling me a liar because I said these references don't exist, yet STILL you fail to produce them!

Why is that .....

 

[NewtonTrino]

No, you don't. That's the point. Pretty much every government in the world says all pyramid schemes are illegal, you say they're not.



Clearly there is.



Which just goes to show they're not reliable sources. Or are you claiming all the OFFICIAL sources I gave above are wrong?

We remain with the following facts -

** multiple incontrovertible official sources state all pyramid schemes are illegal
** maximara and newton trino and some other sources says some pyramid schemes are not illegal
(says maximara and newton trino)

Hmmm .... decisions, decisions, who to believe when deciding on matters of law? The governments and official bodies who decide and enforce them, or a couple of folk on the 'net and a handful of minor references ....

I'm not even going to bother responding to this drivel. Seriously this is your argument?

 

[NewtonTrino]

oh, and still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

come on now, don't be shy. You went on a multiple post rant calling me a liar because I said these references don't exist, yet STILL you fail to produce them!

Why is that .....

Come back when you've made more than a minimum wage mcdonalds worker.

Then you can be the proof that it works! Of course you'll also have to prove that everyone below you isn't losing money hand over first.

Success != building a network of fools and stealing their money one tape at a time.

 

[icerat]

still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for the claim of a 99% failure rate.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Awesome, I guess not having this paper validates MLM.

Or maybe the burden of proof lies elsewhere?

 

[icerat]

I guess that means you can't back up your claims then

 

[maximara]

Again Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is "a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner" so your delusions don't matter.

The article does not appear to have been published in the journal.

More unresearched drivel from icerat. Go to The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology: Public Section.

"RATINGS:

* for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED

** for coaches and athletes (research-based but less technical/more applied)

[...]

ARTICLES ETC. (see Library below for Download)

POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING

1. [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology
POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology"

Clearly part of the online Journal and clearly marked as peer reviewed.

Also if Icerat is Insider201283 then as this list of "Potential references re Network Marketing" shows he doesn't handle the truth very well as it still lists Robert Kiyosaki not once but twice even though that source was so raked over the coals that all was left was ash.

As pointed out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 Kiyosaki has been shown to be a totally untrustworthy source as he has been shown to give advice that is not only bad but according to John T Reed down right illegal according to John T Reed down right illegal.

When some presents a man who admits to using his cat as a business partner to get out of contracts as a possible reliable source you have to wonder just where in the heavens and Earth they left their common sense and their integrity.

 

[maximara]

I guess that means you can't back up your claims then

Actually if icerat is Insider201283 as he claimed it is him who couldn't prove that the many peer reviewed papers that used Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff as reference were wrong.

In fact if you go over Insider201283's arguments to keeping Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff out of the MLM article you see what can only be described as desperation.

Also if icerat is Insider201283 then he is a full blown hypocrite in that there he practically demanded the editors accept a Wiley publication that supports MLM but here happily ignore two Wiley publications (one who predates the Dr. Joe Rubino book presented) that flat out state the MLMs are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes. A claim I might add backed up by a publication by no less than SAGE.

I would like to ask where are the peer reviewed publications that directly refute the papers that use Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff ? I would say they likely don't exist for if they did they would have been presented in wikipedia talk page.

 

[icerat]

More unresearched drivel from icerat.

Oh well ... it's an "online journal" then, with zero impact and a reaallll professional, academic like home page

Of course, STILL IRRELEVANT

When some presents a man who admits to using his cat as a business partner to get out of contracts as a possible reliable source you have to wonder just where in the heavens and Earth they left their common sense and their integrity.

And you continue to outright lie. Where have I pushed for Kiyosaki to be used as a Wikipedia source? A sandbox article on my user page does nothing of the sort. Some articles I list purely so I can try and check *their* sources to see if there's any good ones.

Still, pretty amazing that you think Kioysaki's opinion should be dismissed because .... of someone else's opinion!!!

FitzPatrick, Taylor et.al from PyramidSchemeAlert were posted on WP:RS for discussion and rejected as reliable sources by independent third parties.

Yet you want them to be considered anyway, somewho making me the villain, and conveniently ignoring the fact FitzPatrick has been shown to outright lie and was practically laughed out of court as an "expert" by a California judge and Taylor is blatantly dishonest in his use of statistics

So I ask AGAIN -

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I actually think the failure rate is a solid 100%. I guess it depends on how you define success. Even if you manage to build a large enough pyramid underneath you to remain profitable you aren't any more successful than Bernie Madoff IMHO.

 

[maximara]

I actually think the failure rate is a solid 100%. I guess it depends on how you define success. Even if you manage to build a large enough pyramid underneath you to remain profitable you aren't any more successful than Bernie Madoff IMHO.

The Bernie Madoff case is prime example of how the agencies designed to protect people failed. The SEC seems to have been out to lunch for near a decade despite being given indications that something was wrong.

The one good thing is the case had embarrassed the SEC enough to look into some other situations more closely. The bad thing is there may be many more of these thngs out there ready to blow up in everyone's face.

 

[icerat]

Still waiting maximara .... now come on ... you ranted and practically screamed in my face I was a horrible liar for claiming they didn't exist ... but I'm still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

 

[Fnord]

Icerat, have you made any money through sales of Amway products that would not have otherwise occurred were it not for this thread?

If so, then what percentage of those earnings have you turned over to JREF as due compensation for the use of their website to advertise your products?

If not, then why waste any more of your time?

 

[icerat]

If not, then why waste any more of your time?

Why are you on "wasting" time on this site Fnord? Are you suggesting people should only spend time on JREF forums if they have a profit motive?

Frankly I think that's a pretty said view of the world ....

 

[icerat]

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

 

[Fnord]

Why are you on "wasting" time on this site Fnord? Are you suggesting people should only spend time on JREF forums if they have a profit motive?

Frankly I think that's a pretty said view of the world ....

Sales Tactic #3: When you can't refute the question, attack the questioner.

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

Sales Tactic #7: When all else fails, re-direct the questions elsewhere.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I come here because I look to goof off.

Anyway isn't this entire thread merely a semantic game? We mostly agree on the facts, we just come to different conclusions. Of course the skeptical side isn't listening to amway brainwashing propaganda garbage and so are able to come to the correct decision.

 

[maximara]

Still waiting maximara .... now come on ... you ranted and practically screamed in my face I was a horrible liar for claiming they didn't exist ... but I'm still waiting ....

show me an academic paper that presents evidence for your claim of a 99% failure rate.

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

The problem is the minute you see Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and or Vandruf it is hat over the eyes, fingers in the ear, and go la la la time.

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

 

[maximara]

I'm not even going to bother responding to this drivel. Seriously this is your argument?

If Icerat is Insider201283 this nonsense should come as no surprise. When confronted with the fact that papers like Cruz were peer reviewed Insider201283's response was basically ad hominem towards Cruz.

Insider201283's list of potential references was a total joke. Of the twelve presented only three were really useful as the rest were either self published, only tangentially related to the topic, or out of divisions about with little to nothing was know about their quality given.

When presented with proof that Random House and Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing Group did do vanity books Insider201283 basically ignored the issue.

 

[maximara]

Come to think of it, why didn't you address similar questions to Newton Trino and Maximara?

Perhaps it is because he and I are not spewing stuff better suited to Humpy Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

 

[icerat]

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

Not a single one of them presents evidence to support your claim

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

There's a teapot in orbit around jupiter. Please provide me with peer reviewed articles refuting the claim

 

[icerat]

Sales Tactic #3: When you can't refute the question, attack the questioner.

How does one "refute" a question? Frankly I didn't realise you were serious with them. It seems you were, which is pretty damn bizarre.

So, no I've made no money from my presence on JREF. Idiotic question.

Why do I "waste my time"? Same reason everyone else is here - debating and discussing myths and misbeliefs. This particularly thread you'll note was correct to continue discussion on a podcast on MLM that had numerous inaccuracies in it.

Sales Tactic #7: When all else fails, re-direct the questions elsewhere.

What on earth are you babbling on about? You're on a forum were hundreds of people a day discuss multiple sides of an issue, primarily debunking myths. I do the same and I must have a profit motive?

Do you, maximara, and newton trino work for Proctor & Gamble? Is that why you're here spreading myths about the competition?

 

[NewtonTrino]

We spread truths so that people can avoid getting scammed. It's really that simple.

 

[icerat]

opinions are not always truths

 

[Skeptic]

True, true. But in the opinion that MLMs are a scam, they are.

 

[icerat]

in your opinion

 

[NewtonTrino]

You would admit that *some* amway groups have scammed IBO's in the past though right? Not to agree with that would really take some sophistry.

 

[icerat]

You would admit that *some* amway groups have scammed IBO's in the past though right? Not to agree with that would really take some sophistry.

I wrote a whole post a long time ago Amway is not a scam but you can still be scammed

 

[maximara]

The articles from Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, SA Mercantile Law Journal, Journal of Consumer Marketing, and for System Dynamics conferences have been presented.

The problem is the minute you see Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and or Vandruf it is hat over the eyes, fingers in the ear, and go la la la time.

We are still waiting for the peer review articles that refute them.

Not a single one of them presents evidence to support your claim

It is really sad when people are so delusional they can't even read.

"The vast majority of MLM’s are recruiting MLM’s, in which participants must recruit aggressively to profit. Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company." That is a direct quote from Cruz of the 2008 System Dynamics conference.

The Sandbek American Board of Sport Psychology article goes on for several paragraphs concluding "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations."

The rest of Icerats claims is more of the same. I have seen Creationists more rational than this.

 

[maximara]

True, true. But in the opinion that MLMs are a scam, they are.

More to the point unlike the drivel Icerat has given us they are peer reviewed articles