 |
 |
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]