Janet, Now I understand why everyone was so jumpy when I recommended
a specific brand name, it is done so often and without notice on the
autism list. I apologize I didn't realize that this list was under
attack by sales people. The autism list has not had this problem, at
least not yet! <smile>  Linda Forrest's Mom

janet paterson wrote:
>
> hi judith
>
> you wrote:
> >Mark Hughes probably erred in not stating up front
> >that he was involved with marketing this product.
> >However, had he done so, I have no doubt that he
> >would have been accused of blatantly pushing his
> >product. He was in a no win situation.
>
> i have checked his previous messages
>
> his 'father-in-law' was not mentioned in any detail
> until his business interest was exposed
>
> prior to that, mark made mention of at least three different products
>
> if his purpose in joining the list was to help his 'father-in-law'
> why would his first action be to discuss his products?
>
> my radar had been on alert for sometime
>
> have i tried to sell anything to the listmembers? have you?
> have any others of our current 1600 members?
>
> after seeing his websites,
> [which i stongly recommend, don't rely on my word only]
> i have serious doubts about the truth of anything that he has told us
>
> to call an unprofessional spade an unprofessional spade
> he has more 'scam' websites and associated lawsuits and newsgroup 'exposes'
> than a dog has fleas  [i apologise to any dogs reading this]
>
> he is not just marketing the stuff
> [no offense to those innocent herbs intended]
> he owns several multi-layer-marketing companies
>
> >... However, I didn't think he was 'pushing' it.
>
> i'm not sure that i understand what you mean here
> as far as i could tell, he was trying to sell something, period
>
> >Nor do I like censorship, or dishonesty.
> >Unfortunately, when someone is 'set upon,' in
> >an open forum, a form of censorship is imposed.
>
> that is not censorship,
> it is simply aggression
> or
> a lively interchange of ideas
>
> if someone is pounced on or flamed
> they have every opportunity to make their position clearer
> if they so wish
>
> that is the miracle here
> no-one can 'shout me down' or 'shut me up'
>
> we all get to take our turn
> and
> we all have to take our turn
>
> if i feel guilty about being caught out at something illegal
> i might make a whole lot of noise and then take off for easier pickings
> [viz mark's barrage of messages]
>
> if i feel justified in my position
> i might stand and defend myself against all comers
>
> signing off the list
> and simply being timid about posting
> are two different things
> and reveal two different states of mind
> and dare i say two different attitudes toward PD
>
> >Surely we can disagree, or state our opinions without overkill.
>
> yes, we can and should disagree
> but who draws the 'overkill' line? and where?
> is that not true censorship?
>
> >Mark Hughes may have signed off the list in disgust.
> >And who loses? First of all, his father-in-law...
>
> judith, i doubt very seriously that his 'father-in-law' exists
>
> however, if he does, and if i were him,
> i'd be looking for help in places other than my 'son-on-law'
>
> your lively syber-sybling
>
> janet
>
> janet [log in to unmask]