Friday, October 31, 2008

Happy Halloween From Tex


MySpaceAnimations.com

MySpace Funny Halloween Comments @ MySpaceAnimations.com



TEX Says....

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

With it being Halloween, folks wearing costumes, et al....riddle me this, Batman:

Let's switch roles and consider Yager and the rest of the LCK's (Lying Cowardly "Kingpins") were doing the right thing and making most of their profits from Amway instead of the tools. First of all, they wouldn't have earned the title of LCK. Obviously, the tool prices would be much lower, more people would be making money, the Amway business would be growing, more people staying in, better reputation, etc., etc., etc.

Then let's say I come along, with a MUCH smaller business, and decide to ignore Rich DeVos direction to keep tool profits 20% or less than Amway profit (or whatever number less than Amway profit you want to use), become an lck (smaller version of LCK) and Amway's reputation starts to suffer because of this.

Question: How many blinks of an eye, or beats of a heart would it take to boot me?

Answer: 1 or less. QED

BOO!

19 comments:

Tex said...

My only regret with the new post is LCK George Halsey is not on the front page any longer.

Oh well, Halloween isn't a bad time for a dead man to be "buried" on page 2.

Tex said...

From ibofb's site:

by ajgannon on Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:46 pm

visioneer wrote:
Even Tex says he has gone off the deep end.

Tex maintains a very high standard for his friends to adhere to. Most don't cut it. ---- I consider anyone a friend who can look at simple facts, use straightforward logic and honesty as a basis for thought, and come to a reasonable conclusion. If that doesn't include you aj, that's no fault of mine.

Tex said...

Here's Bitchett weighing in on ibofb's blog:

by Bridgett on Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:48 am

Does he really think he's gone off the deep end, or just ticked that he "outed" him? ---- If you had been reading QIAC's blog Bitchett, you would KNOW I considered QIAC a whacko way prior to this.

Why he'd be surprised is curious. ---- Who said I was surprised? The only time I'll be surprised is when you say something intelligent, Bitchett.

Kind of reminds me of C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" and how all the demons treat each other. ---- Kind of reminds me of any fairy tale that starts with, "Once upon a time...."

Tex said...

Now we have "Joe the Uncle." LOL

Tex said...

Rich DeVos' new book, "10 Powerful Phases for Positive People" is now being promoted on the A/Q site.

When I wrote a personal, registered letter to Rich over 3 years ago, I got a call/e-mail back from a high level Quixtar executive, Larry Harper, last known working the Latin American market.

Larry indicated Rich isn't involved in the business much any longer, basically patted me on the head, and that was that.

If Rich is feeling well enough to write a book, make speeches, etc., he is feeling well enough to ensure the tool scam gets shut down, now 25 YEARS (1/4 CENTURY!) after his "Directly Speaking" recordings were made.

Here's my 10 Powerful Phrases for Positive IBO's:

1. Stop the tool scam
2. Stop the tool scam
3. Stop the tool scam
4. Stop the tool scam
5. Stop the tool scam
6. Stop the tool scam
7. Stop the tool scam
8. Stop the tool scam
9. Stop the tool scam
10.Stop the tool scam

Any questions?

Tex said...

Interesting video on ibofb's site, listening to what the "Great Jim Dornan", LCK extraordinaire says about "losers" at the 1:21 point in the video:

http://www.amwaytalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=265&sid=4089d277eeb223fc00c9bdd59296bbe5

Then, at 4:53, this LCK talks about people before profits, but his tool scam is designed to place tool profits before people. Disgusting.
Later on,

Tex said...

ibofb wrongly stated on his blog, at:

http://www.amwaytalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=266&sid=15805cfd8cb313b32c426d3d552afb0a

"...if the Judges ruling in Berr vs Amway UK is taken at face value, Liberty League would be breaking the law to sell any ABOs any BSM for a profit

Mind you, so would you local book store ..." ---- This is patently FALSE, as a book store is not an ABO/IBO, therefore there is absolutely NO problem with buying books at the local book store. The point is WHERE the profit is going, NOT that someone is making a profit. When will ibofb stop telling these lies?

Anonymous said...

IBOFB is not interested in the truth. He wants to promote Amway come hell or high water.

Anonymous said...

Tex said -

Mind you, so would you local book store ..." ---- This is patently FALSE, as a book store is not an ABO/IBO

BWW, WWDB, N21 etc aren't ABO/IBOs either.

tex said...

I've known this for a long time, but as I've been "banned" from his site, I can't challenge his lack of fact directly.

However, if you have access to his blog, I would appreciate informing him and his "followers", mostly brown-nosers, of the facts.

There is another issue on the Veterans Day thread that should be challenged as well. Thanks.

tex said...

anon #2 said, "BWW, WWDB, N21 etc aren't ABO/IBOs either." ---- True, but they are RUN by IBO's, and IBO's that run these "enterprises" PROFIT from the tool scam. Please understand you will be corrected on this blog.

Also, if you are ibofb (and it appears you are), you SHOULD use your own name/handle. However, you are welcome to post regardless, as my prime motive is to counter bad and incorrect IDEAS, not individuals.

IBOFB said...

So a company that has IBOs as shareholders or management can't sell to IBOs?

(sorry, last post was an inadvertent anon, was me)

tex said...

You know very well there is little comparison between your "example" and the tool scam scenario.

I would expect most companies to have shareholders, management, employees, and let's throw in suppliers and buyers as well, that are IBO's.

However, the amount of marketing, volume/profit, focus, etc., on IBO's in this case bears LITTLE resemblance to the MA$$IVE marketing, volume/profit, focus, etc., a tool scam company throws at their IBO's.

ABSOLUTELY no comparison, and you would make the same argument if you were being intellectually honest with your position on the tool scam.

But I KNOW intellectual honesty is not your "thing", you are MUCH more interested in arguing for argument's sake.

If the LCK's are so proud of the money they make via tools, why do they not publish it?

IBOFB said...

Where's the limit set Tex? Can you point me to it in Justice Norris' ruling? What makes non-ABO N21 "banned" but not non-ABO "amazon.co.uk"?

If amazon.co.uk's CEO was an ABO, would that make Amazon banned?

What if there were ABO shareholders? What if ABOs owned a company that owned shares+

Where's this all defined Tex? Point it out in the ruling and Amway Europe rules please, 'cause frankly I can't find it.

tex said...

Even though you don't answer my questions, I'll answer yours.

Where's the limit set Tex? ---- Oh good grief! How's THAT for an ibofb-ism? The ENTIRE ruling was written in the context of the LCK's not making a tool profit. In this respect, the limit is ZERO, and includes EVERYTHING, including such things as the travel and lodging costs of the former LCK's.

Can you point me to it in Justice Norris' ruling? ---- See above.

What makes non-ABO N21 "banned" but not non-ABO "amazon.co.uk"? ---- The inherent conflict of interest involved when the MA$$IVE tool profits are kept secret and most IBO's can't make a net profit until they reach about the Platinum level, if they follow the LCK's "guidance." If someone ELSE is making the tool profit, the conflict of interest is GONE.

If amazon.co.uk's CEO was an ABO, would that make Amazon banned? ---- No, because the IBO profit would be tiny compared to their overall profit. This is simple stuff ibofb. I know you're much more intelligent than this, and the ONLY reason to argue is for argument's sake.

What if there were ABO shareholders? ---- See above.

What if ABOs owned a company that owned shares+ ---- I assume you mean shares of amazon stock. In this case, see above.

Where's this all defined Tex? ---- Why does every single possible combination/scenario have to be spelled out? There is a thing called common sense, which is very uncommon in your thoughts.

Point it out in the ruling and Amway Europe rules please, 'cause frankly I can't find it. ---- See above regarding the ruling, and I haven't seen the Amway Europe rules, but would be happy to point out your errors again if you want to post them or link to them.

IBOFB said...

"common sense" isn't defined in law. When is it OK for an IBO to profit from BSM sales to an IBO and when is it not?

You say it's ok for an IBO to be a shareholder with Amazon and profit if IBOs purchase books from Amazon, but not ok for an IBO to be a shareholder with say N21 and profit if IBOs purchase books from N21.

Where's the limit? At which point does it become unacceptable. Don't give me some rubbish about "common sense".

Tell me what the ruling says.

tex said...

Again, you didn't answer my previously asked question, and again I will answer YOUR question.

You probably don't understand Thomas Payne's Common Sense document, which probably was the "fuse" for the Revolutionary War. However, this is how Americans think, not with theoretical, what-ifs that are so ridiculous you would be laughed out of any meaningful debate, at least in this country.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+sense

There is also a legal definition part way down the page, which says, "COMMON SENSE, med. jur. When a person possesses those perceptions, associations and judgments, in relation to persons and things, which agree with those of the generality of mankind, he is said to possess common sense. On the contrary, when a particular individual differs from the generality of persons in these respects, he is said not to have common sense, or not to be in his senses. 1 Chit. Med. Jur. 334.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

You, ibofb, are not in your senses. Here's the deal: On one mountaintop we have zero tool profit allowed by the UK judge, and on another mountaintop we have amazon.com making profit on a book sale.

There is a possibility of building a (mental) bridge between these 2 mountaintops, but there is such great distance and depth between the 2 mountaintops, it makes no "common sense."

In other words, your "example" is ridiculous, and worthy only of laughter. LOL

As I said before, the PROFIT MOTIVE is what is glaringly present in one case and almost completely lacking in the other. Can you guess which one is the former and the latter?

IBOFB said...

BSM is explicitly defined in Amway Europe rules as ANYTHING used for building your Amway business.

ergo, a pencil is BSM.

The judges ruling makes it "illegal" to profit selling BSM to an ABO.

ergo, selling a pencil to an ABO is "illegal"

From a legal perspective, N21 has exactly the same relationship with ABOs and Amway as Amazon does.

That part of the ruling wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a challenge in court.

It's too poorly defined to mean anything sensible, it only "works" because Amway can threaten to cancel the contracts of anyone who "ignored" it. Indeed, in another country, with a judicial system based on english law, some BSMs companies sued Amway when they tried this, and effectively won. Neither Amway nor a Court ruling against Amway has the right to order a third company what they can and cannot do. They can't tell Amazon who they can and cannot sell to, and they can't tell BWW, N21 or anyone else either, all of whom have *exactly* the same legal relationship standing with Amway as Amazon does.

The case was reportedly withdrawn after Amway threatened to withdraw "good standing" of the leaders associated with the BSM companies involved, but the point was made - this approach only works effectively through blackmail, and that's not a sensible way to operate a business.

Clearly when things are finalized post BERR appeal, things will have to be clarified.

Not that I expect you to care what's actually legal or not. Let's just leave it all to "common sense".

Ciao Tex, been a pleasure as always, just thought I'd see if you could answer my question, and as I already knew - you couldn't.

tex said...

BSM is explicitly defined in Amway Europe rules as ANYTHING used for building your Amway business. ---- Really? Then provide the definition or a link to it, then.

ergo, a pencil is BSM. ---- Ergo, I'll bet a pencil is BSM if purchased from an LCK, but not from an unrelated store.

The judges ruling makes it "illegal" to profit selling BSM to an ABO. ---- That's right, but the ENTIRE ruling is related to the UPLINE making a profit, not the store down the street. If that were true, you couldn't even buy gas to go show the plan!

ergo, selling a pencil to an ABO is "illegal" ---- Ergo, you lack common sense.

From a legal perspective, N21 has exactly the same relationship with ABOs and Amway as Amazon does. ---- Really? I didn't realize I signed a BSM agreement with Amazon, like I did with the LCK's.

That part of the ruling wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of withstanding a challenge in court. ---- That part of the ruling was initiated by Amway, so who are you suggesting is going to challenge it?

It's too poorly defined to mean anything sensible, it only "works" because Amway can threaten to cancel the contracts of anyone who "ignored" it. ---- It's only poorly defined to those lacking common sense.

Indeed, in another country, with a judicial system based on english law, some BSMs companies sued Amway when they tried this, and effectively won. ---- Tried what? Examples? How does one "effectively" win in court?

Neither Amway nor a Court ruling against Amway has the right to order a third company what they can and cannot do. ---- Then why did Jim Dornan run back into his rathole after his first letter last year? You know, the one you posted, removed, posted again, and removed again? If anyone wants to see the letter, I can find the link on adatudes. Then, he issues a "correction" letter, what a joke! If the court or Amway has no right, then why did little Jimmy Dornan act like a puppet on a string with these letters? Do you think it had anything to do with some other UK Diamonds getting booted for trying to run around the tool selling rules Amway laid down? So do I. The only thing that's a bigger joke than Dornan is YOU, ibofb. Wake up and smell the end of the tool scam coffee.

They can't tell Amazon who they can and cannot sell to, and they can't tell BWW, N21 or anyone else either, all of whom have *exactly* the same legal relationship standing with Amway as Amazon does. ---- See BSM contract discussion, above. Also, why isn't little Jimmy Dornan countersuing, if this is true? Is he too much of a "loser", like he talks about prospects being in his recent function promotional video on your site? If he talks like this on a promotional video, Katie-bar-the-door when he is in the actual function or in private.

The case was reportedly withdrawn after Amway threatened to withdraw "good standing" of the leaders associated with the BSM companies involved, but the point was made - this approach only works effectively through blackmail, and that's not a sensible way to operate a business. ---- Reportedly withdrawn? Now you're groping, and it isn't pretty. Pretty funny, perhaps. The "good standing" of all LCK's should be withdrawn as far as I'm concerned. How can a bunch of liars and cowards possibly be in "good standing?"

Clearly when things are finalized post BERR appeal, things will have to be clarified. ---- As far as I know, the only appeal was filed by the government, as they thought the judge didn't go far enough. Amway was happy and lucky to have survived, and the UK government still wants them shut down completely.

Not that I expect you to care what's actually legal or not. ---- I very much care what's legal, and by definition, what is legal is what the court rules, until/unless it is overruled.

Let's just leave it all to "common sense". ---- I never left it all to common sense, just your retarded "example", which represents the opposite of common sense.

Ciao Tex, been a pleasure as always, just thought I'd see if you could answer my question, and as I already knew - you couldn't. ---- Ciao ibofb/loser, I couldn't be happier to have exposed your lunacy once again. I didn't think you would ever answer my earlier question, and as I expected - you didn't!

All content is copyrighted 2009-2011 by each individual blog entry author.