MLM Survivors Club: Re: [MLM Survivors Club] Re: Melalueca

On Friday 04 January 2008, Tammy with Get Remembered wrote:
> The HUGE problem with all of this response, (long laundry list of
> problems actually) is that you are responding as if you were HIRED to
> be an EMPLOYEE. That is totally wrong. No, the you are not hired. You
> an independent contractor....that is the big LIE of MLM haters - that
> you are an employee that is hired and therefore you deserve some kind
> of 'favors' as it were.

A few points to note here. First, the term "MLM haters." That's
labelling people, or, in a way, a variation of the "straw man" fallacy.
The point is to label one or more people with a truly negative label
which then justifies ignoring whatever they say and makes it easy to
just dismiss their comments without paying attention to them.

My focus, in responding to your email, was to point out how many of the
statements (or almost all) you make are inaccurate and can easily be
disproven by facts that are established by people with credibility or
by appropriate reasoning skills. The only thing you've found wrong
with our responses is this one point you bring up: that in an MLM
you're not an employee. We have made many valid and firm points, yet
there is only one that you have brought up at all. It is as if, by
finding an "Achilles Heel" you can dismiss everything else we say.

That is not true. For instance, several of us have pointed out why your
pyramid scheme argument is not valid, yet you have made no attempt to
respond. Is it because you don't follow or understand our reasoning,
or is it because you don't want to deal with that issue because you
can't refute it or you don't want to hear a point of view that is
different than yours?

Now, on to the employee issue. Okay, most MLMs refer to their members
as business owners. I'll be kind and use the term one of the biggest
MLMs uses: IBO, for Independent Business Owner. Now here is a major
point: Several of us have addressed this issue by pointing out the risk
of being an MLM IBO as opposed to buying, say, a McDonald's franchise.
You have not addressed those points. You have, instead, pointed out
one small point: in an MLM you're not an employee. That's true, but
that does not nullify all the other points in this response. The "not
an employee" point *could* nullify only one sentence in this post, but
nothing else.

You say there is a whole laundry list of problems with this post.
You've seen our responses. If you make a charge, you'll be asked to
support it. Give us the laundry list of problems with this response.

You can't. Why? Because we're using facts and logic, not nice sounding
comments that someone has given us or told us to say.

> And for the record. NO, this was not a sales pitch and NO I am not
> talking about training materials at all. But rather the right people
> to learn from that are doing it correctly. It's a paradigm shift.

No, it isn't. It's not a paradigm shift at all. MLMs have been around
for decades. Some of the ones we're dealing with have been around
since the 1950s. They have many members, but, again, over 99.9+% of
the members LOSE MONEY. If even 25% of the members struck it rich,
then there might be a reason to go forward with one, but it's still not
a paradigm shift. It's still a pyramid scheme (notice you have not
been able to refute our responses that show you haven't disproven this)
and it's no different than a chain letter or any other pyramid scheme.
Those have been around for centuries.

You have not shown any reason, nor has any MLM, why it is a paradigm
shift. I know they like to say that, but there has been no proof,
especially when fewer than .1% of their members succeed.

Are you trying to claim that the model is good but that much of the
membership does not know how to work the system or that mover 99.9% of
those in it don't work hard enough?

> You guys are so set that this is a 'sales pitch' and that I am
> PRO-MLM that you are only twisting around my words and coming to your
> own conclusions that fit you way of thinking. Thanks for that. Maybe
> you should try asking instead of assuming....and we all know what
> assuming does, right?

I honestly do not think you are reading what we're writing. I don't
think you have yet read the documents Paine Webber told you to read
about what this group is about.

Now, as for asking instead of assuming: We read what you said and told
you what it looks like. Is it just possible you think you're
presenting yourself one way and not another?

You started with what amounts to a sales pitch. Maybe you weren't
selling an MLM or a product you would get paid for, but you were
selling an idea or a point of view. You were selling the concept of
MLMs as a viable income option. Whenever you are trying to persuade
someone of something, it amounts to a form of selling.

We have not twisted your words at all. We have pointed out holes in
your reasoning and gaps in your logic. We have pointed out where you
say you will prove something, but don't prove it.

Let's look at just ONE point. You say you can prove an MLM is not a
pyramid scheme. That means you have to prove an MLM structure does not
fit the same structure of a pyramid scheme. You don't do that.
Instead you accuse other organizations of being a pyramid (and not a
pyramid scheme). What those other organizations are or are not does
not effect what an MLM is.

Let me give you an example. If I hold a rose in my hand and someone
says, "That's a rose," and I say, "It isn't a rose," then I point to a
lily and say, "A rose has petals and a stem and pretty colors and
leaves. This isn't a rose, that is a rose," that does not prove what I
have isn't a rose. What I say about any other flower, whether right or
wrong, does not prove a thing about the rose I'm holding.

If the accusation is that an MLM is a pyramid scheme, then no matter
what you say about other organizations, it has NO effect on what an MLM
is. It's just changing the subject instead of facing the issue.

Tam, it seems we're having a one way discussion. You want to state your
point of view, but you don't want to hear those who disagree with you.
Either that or you are so sure you're right that you're not willing to
even address any points of disagreement.

Why are you here, in this group?

What do you think, from reading the description and from reading any
documents Paine Webber asked you to read, the purpose of this group is?
Why are people here in this group?

I've addressed your comments, taking on many of them with carefully
thought out responses, yet your only response is, "Oh brother." Why is
that? Can you respond, point by point? Can you provide facts or
support for what you say, or are you just saying what you've been told
by others in MLMs?

Do you understand logic and logical fallacies? For example, do you
understand why your attempt to address the pyramid scheme issue is
invalid? Do you see that instead of answering why MLMs aren't pyramid
schemes, you simply accuse other groups of the same thing? Do you
understand that what we're doing here is making statements and
supporting them with facts or with actual logic or reason that can be
proven step by step?

Our complaints and issues with what you have said is that you make a lot
of statements and back them up with statements that sound good or are
easy to say slogans, but have no proof. Do you understand that?

Or is it possible that you've been taught how to think by MLMs? Please
answer this question (and those above) clearly. You're the one that
started this conversation, so it's only fair that you defend your point
of view clearly, lucidly, and intelligently. Is it possible that
you've been in MLMs for so long that you are not able to see other
points of view?

Hal