Hey, we're on the SAME SIDE! (Part 2)

Interesting development. Someone using OpenID of ibofightback (or as Mr. Brear said, IBOFB) posted a comment that claimed he had been "debating" Mr. Brear for a long time. (I checked the blog linked and it had not been updated since 2007!)

The existence of that comment lead Mr. Brear somehow to think IBOFB is in league with me in support of Amway. Another false dilemma: you're either with me or against me.

It is almost as if I'm stuck between two factions while trying to maintain my neutrality: because I truly do NOT know which way to rule on Amway.

On one side, you have Mr. Brear, who is very obviously against Amway, repeating at various times that Amway is a cult and pyramid scheme that should have NEVER been legalized.

On the other hand, you have various Amway defenders (okay, actually, just one, who didn't even bother posting ON Shyam's blog) trying "debunk" the amount of hate directed against Amway.

And somehow I am caught in the middle. It is a very strange experience.

Mr. Brear and Shyam clearly wants me to join them, and when I stated I have not studied Amway to pass judgement, they turned hostile. To quote Mr. Brear:

"Thus, when someone like Mr. Chang confidently announces on this Blog that there is nothing inherently fraudulent in, or cultic about, 'Multi-Level Marketing' and then goes on to repeat 'Amway's' reality-inverting propaganda that the problem with the 'Amway' system has been a minority of rogue leaders acting against the organization's own code of ethics, and teaching some 'distributors' to recruit and consume and not to sell the products and, then selling 'tools', my reaction to his ignorance and naivety is hardly surprising."

To translate Mr. Brear:

a) Chang said: "Multi-level marketing is not inherently fraudulent or cultish"
b) Amway said the same thing
thus
c) Chang must be a supporter of Amway

Is that a logical conclusion, leading from a) + b) to c)?

The answer is no: because 1) it could be a coincidence 2) experts said it too

One of MLM's most ardent critics, Robert L. Fitzpatrick, wrote on his website: "My own evaluation has led me to see that, with rare exceptions, the MLM industry is mostly composed of pyramid operations."   (http://www.falseprofits.com/IsMLMLegal.html)


Note the words "with rare exceptions", so the system itself is NOT inherently broken. It's the compensation package details that pushes the thing into 'scam'. However, it seem to be right on the edge, and needs very little tipping to send it over the abyss, and most MLMs, according to this critic, are pyramid schemes.

Is MLM inherently flawed? In my opinion, yes. It relies too much on "leadership" and "person to person" connections, resulting in almost cultish behavior (in fact, Mannatech, a MLM, is classified as a cult in New Zealand).

If MLM beyond salvation? No. Like Mr. Fitzpatrick, I believe there are some MLMs that are operating legally and ethically. And no, I don't know which ones. My specialty is on TVI Express, a scam that pretends to be a MLM, by borrowing all the WORST practices of a MLM, and making it a truly evil scam.

So, Mr. Brear, we really *are* on the same side. If only you will see that...