Hal,
I will apologize for hurting your feelings or offending you in any
way. That was not my intention.
I will not apologize for what I said or how I said it (although I do
agree with John Linthicum that I could have worded my original
subject line more succintly) but will apologize for misinterpreting
your communication style.
Hal, in responding to you I was simply using the style and manner in
which you have used to respond to many a post in this group. The
threads I remember most that left me agape were with the
bardsleyclan, remember them? Around the mid February to early March
time frame (i.e., posts like 45346 "Need some advice" and
45421 "confused by this group)? You literally ripped those people
apart. They responded by stating they were hurt and offended but
instead of apologizing or acknowledging their feelings you quickly
wrote them off with "...This woman, whatever her name is,
wants a magic pill she can use to stop her husband and paint the sky
her favorite shade of blue."
Although I agree with you that it's better for people to discover
their own answers I thought the tone and manner you used with them
harsh and inappropriate. From many a post I've seen, other members
have admitted taking offense to your tone but I've never once seen
you so much as attempt an apology. Thus, I assumed that you
understood a point best when articulated in a sarcastic, mouth-
dropping fashion. Guess I was wrong and whenever I find myself
wrong (which is more often than I'd like;-) I offer heart-felt
apologies.
So, again, sorry for misinterpreting your communication style and
hurting your feelings. However, I still don't see how a request for
a review on a product became a business review. Something I guess I
never will understand.
PS... thanks to the many people who chose to write to me directly
via my email regarding my product review request ... I can see I'm
not alone in thinking the product "...is not all that!"
--- In mlmsurvivorsclub@
>
> On Monday 28 May 2007, cstargio wrote:
> > I was merely asking for reviews on the product Hal. Not a
defense
> > statement for Amazon. I simply said they "...broke my trust and
> > confidence".
to
> > scrutinize anything I buy from their site as they obviously
don't.
> > Do you see anywhere in my post where I even tried to discourage
> > people from using Amazon because they're the culprit here?
No!!!!
>
> I didn't see you saying not to use Amazon. I was addressing your
point
> about breaking your trust. They're a large corporation, which
means
> there are ways they can act as well as things they cannot do. As
for
> scrutinizing anything you buy from their site, that was always
your
> responsibility. Remember, Caveat Emptor! (Let the buyer
beware.)
>
> What gave you the idea that I thought you were trying to
discourage
> people from buying from Amazon?
>
> > And Yes, I did say in my post I expect positive reviews. Do you
> > have a problem with that? I thought this whole group was about
> > looking about positive and negative aspects of MLMs. Isn't that
why
> > some proMLMers are allowed here?
>
> I don't have a problem with that.
>
> Have you been reading posts recently? For the last week and a
half, I
> have been the only one standing against someone who has been using
the
> same kind of reasoning that is often used in MLMs. I've been
doing it
> alone. The closest I've had to any support were two posts about
NPD,
> otherwise, I've been the only person willing to take that stand.
I've
> been doing it alone, without thanks and without help. *I* know
this is
> a place, mostly for survivors, but also for discussing different
> aspects. If you've been keeping up, you would know that and you
would
> NOT need to lecture me about what it's about.
>
> > Isn't it healthy to see both sides
> > and, as a logically thinking adult, use what fits your own
personal
> > values?
>
> Apparently not, since your blood started to boil when I did
nothing more
> than point out the other side of the Amazon situation. Is it
okay "to
> see both sides and, as a logically thinking adult" about some
things
> and not about others? Is it healthy to do that with MLMs and not
with
> large web based companies?
>
> > As an open-minded individual, I take both positive and negative
> > product reviews and use "what makes sense" given the product and
the
> > promise.
>
> Good. So you got a different point of view on Amazon. I'm sorry
it
> made your blood boil, but, honestly, that is no reason for such a
> strong "attack" on me. If you read over what I wrote and the
strength
> of language you have used here and your point about seeing both
sides,
> then it does bring up the question of why it was necessary to come
down
> so hard on me.
>
> > Guess I'm not going to be able to read posts from this group as I
> > try to enjoy my own morning mug. Makes my blood boil when
somebody
> > takes something and turns it in to another cause.
>
> It's not another cause, it's just balancing the facts and
remembering
> that there is no trust bond between us and large companies.
>
> > How did a request
> > for Bio Lean II reviews become a review on Amazon? Can't see
> > anywhere in my post where I asked "why" Amazon does what they do.
> > Yes, Hal, I understand that a business with projected revenues
close
> > to 14 billion this year that does business solely on-line doesn't
> > have time to go over every listing. Did I say anywhere that they
> > did, should or could? No. I understood all that from the
beginning.
>
> Okay, all at once, since there are several different comments I
could
> address directly.
>
> You talked about your trust of Amazon and I pointed out a specific
point
> of view and why they would have "broke [your] trust and
confidence."
> Then, in response I get a rather strong reply and notice about how
you
> can't read this group with your "morning mug."
>
> It's clear Bio Lean II is quite an emotional issue for you.
You've
> talked about logic in this post, but this post is anything but
logical.
> You basically jump down my throat because I point out a different
point
> of view, which is emotional and not logical.
>
> Okay, so it's my turn. I've spent several years on this board.
First
> it helped me because I had a tough time dealing with a girlfriend
who
> was in Quackstar. Since then I have literally spent years here
helping
> people, debating MLM people and trying to do what I could to stand
> against one of the few things in this world that I actually
consider
> evil.
>
> I have been attacked by people, called names, and trashed in a
number of
> ways. I have stood up for others, I have fought to give what
seemed to
> be balanced MLM people a chance to be heard and when they have
stepped
> over the line, I have stood up to have them removed.
>
> Recently it has seemed that if I stand up against someone, that I
do so
> alone, without support, and even without anyone sticking up for me
if
> I'm attacked personally. I have gone out of the way to avoid
making
> personal attacks or making emotional or non-logical statements.
>
> And now, for the first time, I'm going to break that rule.
>
> I've recapped what happened between us. I was not jumping on you,
I was
> not attacking you. I was being quite calm and merely pointing out
that
> a large company cannot be responsible for all the products sold by
> their dealers, as well as remind you that there will likely be a
> movement by the products supporters.
>
> For that, I get hit with a strong emotional attack.
>
> That was not fair and underhanded. I cannot be responsible for
your
> emotional state and I'm sick and tired of having to try to monitor
what
> I say because it might offend someone like you. I spoke out of
logic,
> you responded that we should be able to do that, but then you also
jump
> down my throat. You're an adult. If you can't behave like one,
you
> should not be posting. You're responsible for your feelings and
for
> your anger. So sit and think just one damn minute. What did I
say
> that deserved such a strong reply? What did I say that was not
based
> on logically looking at both sides of an issue?
>
> I've been on here for years, showing as much patience as I can
with
> everyone here and focusing on every detail of MLM reasoning and
pro-MLM
> posts. I've shown the difference between emotional reasoning and
> logical reasoning and it's quite clear that your post was
emotional
> reasoning. I do not deserve that. I did not deserve your attack
for
> trying to point out a logical view that was the other side of your
> point.
>
> I'm tired of standing against people and being the only one to do
so.
> I'm tired of being called names. I'm tired of emotional attacks
> against me.
>
> You talk about logic and being adult, yet you fly off the handle
when
> someone uses logic in response to your comment. You know what?
> Personally, I don't care if you can't read this over your morning
> coffee. Your overreaction to this and anger is your problem, not
mine.
> You made the choice to respond emotionally, not logically, and I'm
not
> going to take care of that. It's up to you.
>
> To all the others, I apologize for such an emotional post, but
after
> several years here, I feel like I at least have the right to not
be
> attacked for pointing out the truth to someone other than a pro-
MLM
> person. I've spent the past week and a half standing up against
> Dawn/Terra and that leading to her running out of any clear
arguments
> and using personal attacks on my reasoning (such as using it
against me
> that I figured out in a week to get out of Quackstar while it took
her
> 16 years or that I don't have children so, supposedly, her
arguments
> are more valid than mine). I'm fed up. Everyone has their limits
and
> this is mine. For once, I just had to vent.
>
> And to cstargio:
>
> You owe me an apology.
>
> I've never asked for one or said one was due. I'm not going to
argue,
> I'm not going to mollycoddle you. I'm just going to say, for the
last
> time, if you can say:
>
> > Isn't it healthy to see both sides
> > and, as a logically thinking adult, use what fits your own
personal
> > values?
>
> then you understand logic and you should understand the difference
> between logical and emotional reasoning. Your attack on me was
> emotional. That shows you've got issues on that topic, which is
fine,
> but taking them out on me is not fine. Deal with it because I'm
not
> going to.
>
> Hal
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment