> Another point would be to ask them
> questions you know their upline has
> answered and after they respond, point
> out the difference between their canned
> responses and an actual answer.
To expand upon this point a little bit:
A great way to frame a response in such a conversation would be to
restate what the canned, upline response was. In other words, you can
say, "Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Your answer was
{fill in the blank}, but this is what I thought it was. Can you
explain the difference? Can you tell me how the answer you got
(presumably from your upline) contradicts my research and how my
conclusions about it don't make sense?"
Obviously, you'll want to word that to apply in your situation. But
what this does is force the comparison between reality and what is
being taught. It doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. In fact, it
suggests that you don't have a full understanding of the situation and
that you're looking to comprehend how one story differs from the other.
The idea, as Hal pointed out, is not to be confrontational but to give
the IBO/MLM rep an opportunity to compare their teachings with what
happens in the real world. When enough of the teaching breaks with
reality, most people will begin to doubt what they're being taught.
That line may be different for everyone, but I think everyone has such
a line.
PW
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