Saturday, March 07, 2009

The Lone Ranger (David Steadson) strikes again

Sorry for the unscheduled holiday, I've been in many parts of North America over the past month, and have really not had much time to create a good post. Things have settled down now, and I'll be more consistent.

I left this comment based on a post from David Steadson about how he was saving Amway again.

Once again, our hero makes the mistake of thinking he is all knowing. I find it interesting how his arrogance always seems to bubble to the surface, as in this case. In his post on his own blog, he pretty much thinks that because he had the author modify the article, he's correct by default.

Again, he is most certainly welcome to think anything he likes, just as I am welcome to think anything I like.

If this guy isn't doing this for personal gain, he needs to get a life.

Here's my comment I left on his blog, I gave him about a day to post it, and it's clear he's not interested in having a conversation with people who can throw barbs back, and are just as knowledgeable of the topic at hand. It's also clear that he doesn't want a public conversation when he's at risk of being exposed as no smarter than anyone else.



"Whether or not it's the death of professional journalism is very much up for debate.

However, journalism has a responsibility too. In Canada, the CBC has been government funded for many years and is VERY left leaning in it's journalism. In reality, it's more of a propaganda machine than a news source, yet it is Canada's National Broadcasting Corporation.

Now, that paragraph about the CBC is subjective, true, but there are enough people who feel that way that it's not a conspiracy theory, nor is it impossible to provide examples which support both opinions.

My opinions of Amway are also subjective, and I am well aware that there are examples supporting both viewpoints. So are yours.

I can't read Swedish, but I read your comment in English. Nothing I haven't heard from you before, but just because he retracted it doesn't necessarily mean you are right and he is wrong.

You would have to concede that there is much, much more to Amway, good and bad, than can be explained in a few posts.

Maybe he didn't feel like investigating it further after seeing the reams of material available to sift through. Maybe he doesn't care enough to refute you.

You seem to insinuate that he was incorrect, and that because you were policing him corrected a (perceived) error, and there is nothing wrong with Amway.

Therefore, his thoughts have no merit.

Untrue, and rather egotistical.

The point? Everyone can equally express opinions now. That's bad for Amway.

Obviously people weren't getting what they wanted from "credible" news sources, and went out to put their teeth in the soil, so to speak, on the WWW to get the straight goods on Amway.

People that want to know won't listen to just the CBC, or Wall Street Journal, or you, or me.

They will take all of it in, then judge for themselves after developing a global opinion based on all the information they receive.

That is Amway's problem. And yours, evidently."

8 Comments:

Blogger Joecool said...

What is strange and ironic is that Amway doesn't seem to mind having IBOFB speak for them.

IBOFB's mistake though, is to always assume he is right and that everyone else is mistaken about Amway/ Why not let Amway speak for themselves? They have paid PR staff. Of course unless IBOFB is a paid Amway PR hack?

08 March, 2009 16:21  
Blogger quixtarisacult said...

...The Swedish Swindler, beacon to the downtrodden... ?

08 March, 2009 19:11  
Blogger rocket said...

That was a good one, QIC.

08 March, 2009 20:02  
Blogger rocket said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

08 March, 2009 20:02  
Anonymous Gina said...

What is humorous is to what lengths Insider will go to in order to portray the image that he is of some sort of credible authority on whatever subject he deems. He never gets outsiders to post on his blogs about his comments...the only people who blow smoke up his arse are IBO's.
Notice he didn't present any factual information contradicting the blog story but rather took issue of resources that helped form the story. Clearly it is because he is unable to do so.

09 March, 2009 10:37  
Anonymous Mike said...

David Steadson signed up for the business..to make some money..like all the others. (He seems to not be doing so well..I guess, he will not reveal his success with Amway.)

He has stated that he has been unable to create wealth based on the "myths" about Amway on the internet, which has effected his business.

His screenname "IBOFightsback" is one that denotes someone that has been attacked and needs to defend their decision in signing up.

His hopes is that he can clean up the internet, so to have it "prospect friendly" and not to lose business because of what a prospect has read..

He is so wrapped up in this "holy war" that he has made it his quest.

I agree with one issue, and that is some critic are not "user friendly" but like IBO's, we are all human.

He is in a defensive mode of operation, his experience with the "great" Amway has reduced his existance to this mission..his reason to be.

He says he is not paid by Amway, This I can not deny..if that is true I am sure they love the free advertisment..

09 March, 2009 18:25  
Blogger Joecool said...

"His hopes is that he can clean up the internet, so to have it "prospect friendly" and not to lose business because of what a prospect has read.."

Joe says: But the reality is that IBOs are their own worst enemies. Critics simply point out the zany things that IBOs do.

14 March, 2009 15:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IBOFB fails to respond when reasonable and rational points raised and particularly when truth is spoken. The immediate instance is his 'no response' to my article in my blog http://corporatefraudswatch.blogspot.com
In India the Amway India Enterprises is facing tough job and it may end up in a deep pit.
Shyam Sundar
Corporate Frauds Watch

21 March, 2009 17:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home