Monte....

I'm appreciative of your understanding that not all is exactly as it's
presented to us here on the Internet/Web when it comes to a slick huckster or
a salesperson pitching for a multi-level marketing enterprise.

I wish others here would just THINK about what it would be if none of us cared
OR tried to expose when what to SOME of us appears VERY obvious when a
multi-level salesperson is posting a pre-sales message.  In my own case, my
reaction is more than a mere gut feeling, 'cause I've worked for 6 years in
the online industry right in the field so often hit by there con artists.
After THAT long, they tend to stand out like they were waving a red flag)

I ask ONE question of them publicly and that's "DO you make a profit or
otherwise derive income from the product(s) and/or service(s) you're pitching
here on the PD List?"

And ya know what?  Not one of them ever just up and says "Yes, I AM making a
profit in selling/referring/servicing here on your List."   Period.   Most
NEVER admit to making money off of us - EVEN if they have a Web site that ONLY
sells their product(s).

They give EXCUSES  for selling here - "I'm getting a discount on these fine
supplements that you can order from the XYZ Online Supplement Co. (insert
company email/URL/phone number here), NOT a profit," or "It's YOUR fault
Janet/Barb/Whomever that you now know I'm selling something!  YOUR FAULT, you
nasty people!"   HUH?  Our "fault?"

Most of these salespersons subscribe to OTHER  "disease-related" Web sites or
Lists ONLY to make money off the subscribers having a chronic disease or
disorder.

They post the SAME messages that they post HERE on the PD List, making the
same claims of having a hubby/wife, aunt/cousin/friend who suffers from THAT
Web site's or List's specific disease, whether it's the MS List, the Lupus
list, Scleraderma Web site, and/or Lists, etc. - anywhere and everywhere
online where folks are chronically ill... WE aren't the only online
disease-related group these individuals go after, you know.

And think of this... IF you order your meds, vitamins, and/or supplements from
a legitimate, reputable, and licensed pharmacy or other legitimate, reputable,
and LICENSED place of business, you're NOT giving away YOUR money to middlemen
or multi-level marketers.  You place your orders directly, either in person,
by phone or FAX, or by mail.  NO one but the company you're dealing with is
making a profit from your purchase!

One last thing:  If I ever can think of a way to make money on the Net, or if
Janet, Ken, Dennis, Don, and well... most of YOU... would say right up front,
"I'm selling this ' widget' in order to make a profit."  And speaking for
myself, I'd ASK the List or Web owner if it was OK with THEM if I tried to
sell a product on their site.

I'd do that because to ME, that's an honest and up front way to deal with the
public in this venue.  And from what I know if most of YOU here on the List,
YOU'D be honest, too (Uhhhhhh.... well, maybe not KEN) <grinning wickedly,
ducking real fast, and running like hell!> (giggle)

GAWD it's good to be back online!  I've missed, my List-family.. Being without
email for 3 1/2 days is mighty trying!

Barb Mallut
[log in to unmask]

----------
From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange on behalf of Monte E. Wetzler
Sent:   Tuesday, January 20, 1998 10:55 PM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
Subject:        Re: BEING FLAMED ON THE LIST - or being hustled?

I have watched this discussion with interest and would like to thank
Barbara and Janet for keeping this community alert.  Th net  is fertile
ground for perhaps the type of activity that is being discussed and this
group in particular is more susceptible than most.  I agree that a direct
answer to a direct question would end all this.

Janet313 wrote:

> dear ken
>
> you wrote:
> >maybe we should have a warning message
> >for each new user of the list, with the "rules and
> >regulalions" to adhere to, to avoid misunderstandings.
>
> from what i have seen of some of the 'salespeople' recently
> they are not ones to follow any 'rules and regulations' anyway
> i remember one whose comment about 'professional behaviour'
> was totally absurd, given the context of his controversial net 'empire'
>
> >we cannot rely on what is called "common sense"
> >because even the smartest people require education.
>
> and even the least educated people can display common courtesy
> which is all anyone has asked for
>
> >Even though I agree that this is not the proper place to
> >advertise products for profit, we may miss out on
> >something that could help a lot of PWP's  if we try
> >to stifle anything that LOOKS like a sales pitch.
>
> ken, do you really think that a potentially successful
> product/treatment would show up here anonymously first?
>
> if you had developed something that looked promising
> what would you do with it?
> maybe go to one of the pd organizations for advice?
> maybe have it professionally tested and confirmed?
>
> for example
> what has tom reiss tried to do with all his work
> re visual cues for parkies and his famous 'blue' glasses?
> has he ever tried to 'pitch' them here?
> would he ever,
> without letting us know in advance
> that he was going to be making a profit or not?
>
> >The worst of all problems is the rush to accuse
> >and blame, and the slew of defenders who often pop up.
>
> i don't see any 'rush to accuse and blame' here
> there have been no accusations made or blame laid
> only a simple question has been asked
> which has been ignored once
> and is still being ignored
>
> if you had found a 'neat' website and wanted to let us know about it
> and if someone asked you if you made money from it
> what would you do?
> you would tell us and probably even apologise
> for not making it clear from the beginning
> simple
>
> >Right or wrong it takes time away from what
> >we're here for, and it doesn't even give us a laugh.
>
> i agree completely
> tami's answer to barb's question of several days/weeks ago
> would have ended this discussion
>
> however, if anyone wants to ignore the whole thing
> the message header is very clear and
> the delete button is always handy
>
> this can be an interesting learning experience for all of us
> if we choose to look at it that way
>
> we are pioneers in a brand new communications medium
> there are no 'rules and regulations' here
>
> anonymity can be a blessed relief to those who lack a 'voice'
> or
> anonymity can be a sheepskin concealing a wolf
> or
> ....?
>
> >It wasn't easy taking Tami's side on this issue,
> >knowing that most of her accusers are folks I've known
> >much longer, such as Barb Mallut, and Arthur Hirsch.
> >whose opinions I respect.
>
> barb, art, and i have expressed suspicion and have asked a question
> no accusations have been made
>
> i'm impressed that you put the effort that you did
> into thinking about the situation
> it's more proof of your kindness and concern for others
>
> we are all entitled to our opinions based on what we observe
> we are all entitled to voice our opinions
>
> >Yes Tami was a litttle sarcastic and sharp tougued
> >but I attribute that to her feeling wrongly accused.
>
> this is where you and i differ in opinion
> i attribute her reaction to feeling 'caught out'
>
> >What she does next will tell us what we need to know.
>
> exactly
> but what she has done in the past may be a pointer
> i.e. she has not answered barb's simple question
>
> again,
> i have only voiced suspicions
> i have not drawn any conclusions
> and i still would love to be proved wrong in my suspicions
> and would be more than happy to apologise if that is the case
>
> when smithkline beecham first made
> anonymous overtures to this list in september
> i reacted with the same suspicion in re concealment of profit motives
> they obviously had a re-think and have come back openly
>
> i despise deception and dishonesty
> i admire openness and truth
> and i feel compelled to sound the alert
> to those i care about whenever i detect either one
>
> your cyber-sis
>
> janet
>
> janet paterson / 50-9 /sinemet-selegiline-prozac / [log in to unmask]