Venture Era - a defending point of view.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Being a MLMer in VE is not a rewarding business; it's not even their own business to begin with, yet they claim they are doing their own business. That's one thing I'm against.
Second thing which has been failed to be brought out is that being an MLMer in VE helps you build passive income. Really duh...
In all, your point of view is not neutral enough. I'm still neutral, preferring to look at facts objectively, and have not condemned anything on their products.
Well, I'm still waiting for objective and valid scientific facts to be presented.
-
Time is money indeed. If you want to argue it that way, then I have nothing to say.
What I mean is that by spending 2 weeks or even 1 month to find out the truth might bring you unexpected surprise, there is really nothing much to lose. If this time really translate into so much money to you that you're not willing to give it a shot, then I really can't say anything.
As to what eagle has said, personally I feel that being a MLM in VE may or may not be a rewarding business depending on the individuals. It's not appropriate to stereotype everyone into the same category. There are definitely successful people as well as people who cannot make it.
Indeed this business ultimately does not belong to them which I completely agree. It is not their own business in a sense that they do not own the company. But it is their own business in a sense that they are in control of how much they earn, unrestricted by any uplines. More effort will bring in more money as compared to those that put in little effort.
As for the passive income, all businessmen earn passive income. Perhaps this is one parallel that we can draw as to why VE claims that they are doing their own business. Definitely it is not suitable for everyone. There are people who prefer earning a stable income under a stable company. I mean it's their own preference, nothing is right or wrong. In the end, this is still an appropriate job and they are making an honest living.
And to add on, I personally feel that being an agent in a MLM company is better than holding a job with fixed salary in a way that one is less vulnerable to financial crisis in terms of retrenchment. One definitely earns lesser in a financial crisis, but at least he will not lose his job though he might earn less, while still able to find other jobs at the same time.
My views are definitely neutral. I am not a pro MLM or neither am I against MLM. What I mean is that MLM is not meant for everyone, but it doesn't mean that we should all condemn MLM and close our doors on them. If you get what I mean, then you'll feel that I'm definitely neutral.
-
Indeed this business ultimately does not belong to them which I completely agree. It is not their own business in a sense that they do not own the company. But it is their own business in a sense that they are in control of how much they earn, unrestricted by any uplines. More effort will bring in more money as compared to those that put in little effort.
In short, a salesman, in the same league as insurance agents and property agents as well. This is called being paid by commissions; it's not their own business at all in any sense.
As for the passive income, all businessmen earn passive income. Perhaps this is one parallel that we can draw as to why VE claims that they are doing their own business. Definitely it is not suitable for everyone. There are people who prefer earning a stable income under a stable company. I mean it's their own preference, nothing is right or wrong. In the end, this is still an appropriate job and they are making an honest living.
Not all businessmen earn passive income through their business. MLMers in VE are still in a job. Period.
And to add on, I personally feel that being an agent in a MLM company is better than holding a job with fixed salary in a way that one is less vulnerable to financial crisis in terms of retrenchment. One definitely earns lesser in a financial crisis, but at least he will not lose his job though he might earn less, while still able to find other jobs at the same time.
You are still vulnerable if you cannot earn. Yes, on paper you are still employed, but you might have zero income. It doesn't matter to the company because you are only paid by commissions. They don't make a loss by employing one more person who takes zero basic pay.
-
In short, a salesman, in the same league as insurance agents and property agents as well. This is called being paid by commissions; it's not their own business at all in any sense.
Indeed it doesn't belong to them, just like what I have said. I guess you didn't get my point there. There is a similarity and parallel to "owning their own business". Don't just look at the technical terms. If what they claimed has offended you in technical terms of the words "own business", then you might want to look at in with a more open heart.
Not all businessmen earn passive income through their business. MLMers in VE are still in a job. Period.
I would be more convinced if you could name me a couple of businesses which the owners do not earn passive income. Thank you. Isn't owning a business a job as well? They are also earning irregular income. There is no clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. You are self employed in both ways.
You are still vulnerable if you cannot earn. Yes, on paper you are still employed, but you might have zero income. It doesn't matter to the company because you are only paid by commissions. They don't make a loss by employing one more person who takes zero basic pay.
Then in that sense, every career is vulnerable. Granted. But you didn't actually managed to convince me that MLM in this case is worse off than having a job with fixed salary or even being the boss of your own business. Earning zero income is less likely in an MLM job even when there's a financial crisis, unless you're selling unmarketable products which Venture Era isn't. Whereas when one is retrenched, he is definitely earning zero income. As you have said, the company doesn't make a loss by employing one more person who gets no basic pay. In terms of pay, yes it is unstable, but you have a stable job.
-
Indeed it doesn't belong to them, just like what I have said. I guess you didn't get my point there. There is a similarity and parallel to "owning their own business". Don't just look at the technical terms. If what they claimed has offended you in technical terms of the words "own business", then you might want to look at in with a more open heart.
Take away the technicality, when you are climbing the corporate ladder, it is your own business as well.
Duh
I would be more convinced if you could name me a couple of businesses which the owners do not earn passive income. Thank you. Isn't owning a business a job as well? They are also earning irregular income. There is no clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. You are self employed in both ways.
Adam Khoo does not earn passive income from his workshops. That is active income.
Yet he's owning the business. You can ask him himself if you want to tell me otherwise.There is a clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. One, you employ people, you have your own brand name. The other, you work for other people's brand name.
Again, another duh.
Then in that sense, every career is vulnerable. Granted. But you didn't actually managed to convince me that MLM in this case is worse off than having a job with fixed salary or even being the boss of your own business. Earning zero income is less likely in an MLM job even when there's a financial crisis, unless you're selling unmarketable products which Venture Era isn't. Whereas when one is retrenched, he is definitely earning zero income. As you have said, the company doesn't make a loss by employing one more person who gets no basic pay. In terms of pay, yes it is unstable, but you have a stable job.
In a financial crisis
Given good skills, when one is retrenched, one can still easily find a job in less than a month, and that's after receiving retrenchment packages. There are still a lot of employments around for highly educated and skilled workers even in a financial crisis, perhaps at a lower pay. It's whether these workers are willing to accept that lower pay. FYI, I know someone from IMFS who got retrenchment package of 11 months, and found a job in less than 11 months. And when economy recovers, they are even more established, have learned even more new things, putting even more value on themselves. Their resume will look even more impressive.
Given good skills, business owners will explore alternatives and increase their own products range, and create opportunities for themselves to enter a new market, establish their brand name as the leader in the industry. And when economy recovers, they are now the leader, they have greater market share, and they are more well known.
Given good skills, what can MLMers do? Sell the same products, still without any brand name at all, and work hard for .............. drum rolls................ their company. Same as a job. But your income will most likely decline, which is the same as being forced to accept a severe pay cut as having a job in a MNC. And when the economy recovers? They are still the same, with the same skillset that won't bring them much further. Nothing much extra on resume, nor will they garner a higher market share because they survived the crisis when competitors can't, nor do they build up any personal brand names.
Given bad skills, once retrenched, indeed, it would be hard to find a job, thus zero income. And given bad skills, you will indeed earn zero income in MLM.
Bad skills, not much difference between being employed, self employed or in MLM in a crisis.
Good skills, I don't see how MLMers are much better off than those climbing the corporate ladder. And it is extremely obvious they cannot compete at all with true business owners. -
Take away the technicality, when you are climbing the corporate ladder, it is your own business as well.
Duh
Climbing the coporate ladder in MLM business comes in a merit basis. Simply put, when you hit a certain quota, say making a total sales of $3000, it means certain promotion. Whereas in most coporate companies, it is normally the one that has been nominated that will progress due to the competition.
Adam Khoo does not earn passive income from his workshops. That is active income.
Yet he's owning the business. You can ask him himself if you want to tell me otherwise.Thanks for your information. I hope there are enough Adam Khoos out there.
There is a clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. One, you employ people, you have your own brand name. The other, you work for other people's brand name.
Again, another duh.
You are wrong. Firstly, agents can hire agents which is equivalent to employing people. Secondly, owners do not necessarily have their own brand names. Ever heard of distributors and sub-contractors? Nike has sub-contracted to many companies, they do not produce their own products. These sub-contractors produce goods of other brands and do not have their own brand. Unless you are talking about owning the company's name. Then I'll just have to laugh.
In a financial crisis
Given good skills, when one is retrenched, one can still easily find a job in less than a month, and that's after receiving retrenchment packages. There are still a lot of employments around for highly educated and skilled workers even in a financial crisis, perhaps at a lower pay. It's whether these workers are willing to accept that lower pay. FYI, I know someone from IMFS who got retrenchment package of 11 months, and found a job in less than 11 months. And when economy recovers, they are even more established, have learned even more new things, putting even more value on themselves. Their resume will look even more impressive.
I hope you've realised that you are stereotyping. Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills. About the retrenchment packages, you are right. But as compared to still having a job, I am not sure whether being retrenched is better after all. Definitely there are jobs around with lower pay, isn't being in MLM one of them? Secondly, are you sure everyone can be like that? Getting a good retrenchment package and increasing their market value after the financial crisis? Can't people that work in VE achieve that too? And by the way, working in VE as MLMer = salesman?
Given good skills, business owners will explore alternatives and increase their own products range, and create opportunities for themselves to enter a new market, establish their brand name as the leader in the industry. And when economy recovers, they are now the leader, they have greater market share, and they are more well known.
Are you sure all good business owners can successfully increase their own product range? Are you sure they can create opportunities for themselves to enter a new market? Are you sure they can establish their brand name as the leader in the industry? Are you sure when the economy recovers they will become the leader with greater market share and more well known? Are you sure? And what makes you think that VE can't do any of those above? Aren't they owned by a boss too? You are generalising everyone.
Given good skills, what can MLMers do? Sell the same products, still without any brand name at all, and work hard for .............. drum rolls................ their company. Same as a job. But your income will most likely decline, which is the same as being forced to accept a severe pay cut as having a job in a MNC. And when the economy recovers? They are still the same, with the same skillset that won't bring them much further. Nothing much extra on resume, nor will they garner a higher market share because they survived the crisis when competitors can't, nor do they build up any personal brand names.
Whole chunk of stereotyping and hypothetical assumptions. What's the difference between what you've said and "All those families with two working parents have kids that go astray" Are you sure VE doesn't invest in new products? Are you sure given good skills, MLMers can't do anything? Are you sure they are still the same after the financial crisis? Are you sure they have only the same skillset? Are you sure they have nothing much in their resume? Are you sure they cannot survive the crisis?
Given bad skills, once retrenched, indeed, it would be hard to find a job, thus zero income. And given bad skills, you will indeed earn zero income in MLM.
Hypothetical assumption yet again.
Bad skills, not much difference between being employed, self employed or in MLM in a crisis.
Good skills, I don't see how MLMers are much better off than those climbing the corporate ladder. And it is extremely obvious they cannot compete at all with true business owners.Working in VE = Bad Skills? Isn't there a coporate ladder in MLM for people to climb?
-
Wtf. Nbz. Copy my nick.
-
Climbing the coporate ladder in MLM business comes in a merit basis. Simply put, when you hit a certain quota, say making a total sales of $3000, it means certain promotion. Whereas in most coporate companies, it is normally the one that has been nominated that will progress due to the competition.
If you have promotion, that means it isn't your own business. If you are the owner of your own business, you promote others; you don't get promoted to a higher rank.
And... that's not a true statement about MNCs. There are two career paths. Managerial path will have limited places, thus competitions occur. The other, technical path, is based solely on merit.
Thanks for your information. I hope there are enough Adam Khoos out there.
There are many business owners who don't earn passive income. They can be selling things in shops, etc etc. Even for MNCs, the CEOs are up there doing strategic planning, etc. They do not just sit back and watch money rolling in without doing anything. They are earning active income.
I hope you can distinguish clearly between passive and active income before having more hopes.You are wrong. Firstly, agents can hire agents which is equivalent to employing people. Secondly, owners do not necessarily have their own brand names. Ever heard of distributors and sub-contractors? Nike has sub-contracted to many companies, they do not produce their own products. These sub-contractors produce goods of other brands and do not have their own brand. Unless you are talking about owning the company's name. Then I'll just have to laugh.
All wrong.
"agents can hire agents which is equivalent to employing people"
Yes, that's what HR people do in MNCs do. But they are not employed under your business."owners do not necessarily have their own brand names. Ever heard of distributors and sub-contractors?"
Sorry hor. Distributors and sub-contractors have their own brand names as well. Sub-contractors are still business owners. I guess you are really the one to be laughed at, coming up with an example that is totally wrong. Do you even understand what is a business? Do you even understand what is meant by a brand name? Or are you just crapping around here?I hope you've realised that you are stereotyping. Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills. About the retrenchment packages, you are right. But as compared to still having a job, I am not sure whether being retrenched is better after all. Definitely there are jobs around with lower pay, isn't being in MLM one of them? Secondly, are you sure everyone can be like that? Getting a good retrenchment package and increasing their market value after the financial crisis? Can't people that work in VE achieve that too? And by the way, working in VE as MLMer = salesman?
Whole chunk of stereotyping and hypothetical assumptions. What's the difference between what you've said and "All those families with two working parents have kids that go astray" Are you sure VE doesn't invest in new products? Are you sure given good skills, MLMers can't do anything? Are you sure they are still the same after the financial crisis? Are you sure they have only the same skillset? Are you sure they have nothing much in their resume? Are you sure they cannot survive the crisis?
Can you even describe how working in MLM will increase your market value? Sell more products? Please la.
And VE invest in new products does not equate to you investing in new products.
And yes, working in VE as MLMer = salesman.
And hor, regarding this: "Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills."
Where the hell did I say working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills???Do point out the exact statements, or you are just showing yourself to be incoherent.
Secondly, are you sure everyone can be like that? Getting a good retrenchment package and increasing their market value after the financial crisis?
Given good skills, yes. Definitely. And using your own logic, are you sure everyone can definitely earn from MLM (means greater than zero income) during a financial crisis? EVERYONE?
Are you sure all good business owners can successfully increase their own product range? Are you sure they can create opportunities for themselves to enter a new market? Are you sure they can establish their brand name as the leader in the industry? Are you sure when the economy recovers they will become the leader with greater market share and more well known? Are you sure?
When you are a good business owner, definitely.
And what makes you think that VE can't do any of those above? Aren't they owned by a boss too? You are generalising everyone.
VE is a company. I'm talking about MLMers, not VE. Please stick to the topic. Many MLMers that come to this forum tells that they are running their own business.
VE is owned by a boss. MLMers are salesman working under this boss.Hypothetical assumption yet again.
A one-liner grunt from you without any supporting statements. Credibility = zero.
And by saying this, you are effectively telling us that given bad skills, you can still earn money in MLM. Means any Tom Dick and Harry can be in MLM and definitely earn money. That, clearly, is not what most MLMers want to tell us; they tell us here that not everyone can earn in MLM.
Please make yourself clear.
Working in VE = Bad Skills? Isn't there a coporate ladder in MLM for people to climb?
Which is why, being in MLM does not equate to you running your own business. You are getting contradictory. Pls refer back to the top.
And again. Point out where I equated: Working in VE = Bad Skills? -
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
Whole chunk of stereotyping and hypothetical assumptions. What's the difference between what you've said and "All those families with two working parents have kids that go astray" Are you sure VE doesn't invest in new products? Are you sure given good skills, MLMers can't do anything? Are you sure they are still the same after the financial crisis? Are you sure they have only the same skillset? Are you sure they have nothing much in their resume? Are you sure they cannot survive the crisis?
Being a real boss, you get full control of your inventory. Not wait for your parent company
Do u hear any lame ass share holders claiming they are the owners of a company ? I guess that wouild only occur in VE. -
Why some people dont get it? Still come out and argue, then kena beaten, then disappear, come out and argue again.
-
If you have promotion, that means it isn't your own business. If you are the owner of your own business, you promote others; you don't get promoted to a higher rank.
Yes you are right but you are getting nowhere because what you have said is irrelevant. I was drawing a parallel between "owning a business" and "being an agent as a MLMer". You can hire agents to work for you even if you are a MLMer, that is parallel to employing workers just like what a boss does.
And... that's not a true statement about MNCs. There are two career paths. Managerial path will have limited places, thus competitions occur. The other, technical path, is based solely on merit.
Yes indeed there are different types of career paths in MNCs. Managerial positions are definitely limited. You are right again. But in Venture Era, it is a completely different story because you do get promoted into managerial positions based on merit instead of nomination. So I guess I have made myself clear enough that being in Venture Era is better in a sense that you have less competition from others vying for the same position.
There are many business owners who don't earn passive income. They can be selling things in shops, etc etc. Even for MNCs, the CEOs are up there doing strategic planning, etc. They do not just sit back and watch money rolling in without doing anything. They are earning active income.
Business owners do earn active income, that's right. Sorry for the confusion.
I hope you can distinguish clearly between passive and active income before having more hopes.I sincerely apologise for making a fool out of myself before checking out the actual meanings of "passive income" and "active income". Staffs of Venture Era are all earning active income. So you are wrong about assuming that they are earning passive income.
All wrong.
"agents can hire agents which is equivalent to employing people"
Yes, that's what HR people do in MNCs do. But they are not employed under your business.Sorry but I'll have to say that the MLMers are earning commissions off their downlines, so these downlines' sales are directing affecting their uplines' [the agent] salaries. In a way, these hired people are working for the agents.
"owners do not necessarily have their own brand names. Ever heard of distributors and sub-contractors?"
Sorry hor. Distributors and sub-contractors have their own brand names as well. Sub-contractors are still business owners.Please read carefully. Try to find out the meaning of that word in red before commenting further. So yes, distributors and sub-contractors can have their own brand names too.
As you have said earlier:
"There is a clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. One, you employ people, you have your own brand name. The other, you work for other people's brand name."
And so, I was pointing out to you that no, not all businesses sell goods with their own brand names, though they have their companys' names.
I guess you are really the one to be laughed at, coming up with an example that is totally wrong.
You might want to do more research regarding Nike's sub-contractors. To give you a head start, you can find out more about Tae Kwang Vina, a Korean owned and operated footwear manufacturer situated in Vietnam. And this is only one of the 700 over companies being contracted to Nike.
Do you even understand what is a business? Do you even understand what is meant by a brand name? Or are you just crapping around here?
Of course I do understand what is meant by a business. Sub-contracting is a business. No doubt about that. They are agents contracted to the respective MNCs to produce goods for them. Just like how MLMers are distributing goods for the company and earning a commission. There is a parallel over here. And of course I also do understand what is a brand name. That is why I've said that "owners do not necessarily have their own brand names", just like Nike's sub-contractors.
Can you even describe how working in MLM will increase your market value? Sell more products? Please la.
Of course I can.
- Salesmanship.
- Network.
- Leadership abilities.
- Public relations.
And VE invest in new products does not equate to you investing in new products.
Omg, I'll die if I have to explain everything in black and white if you can't infer. When Venture Era invests in new products, they are increasing their competitiveness. And when Venture Era becomes more competitive, the agents benefit as well because they are selling competitive products.
And yes, working in VE as MLMer = salesman.
No. They can be marketing managers, marketing group managers, marketing associate managers etc. And their job scope does not include selling the products directly. So they are not salesmen. But of course, they can still choose to sell the products.
And hor, regarding this: "Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills."
Where the hell did I say working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills???You did not say that working in "VE doesn't equate to not having good skills". Similarly, I never did accused you of saying it. I dare you to quote me making the false accusation.
"Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills."
Well I wasn't accusing if you were referring to the above line.
"Working in VE = Bad Skills?"
If the above line was what you were intending to quote. Then perhaps you might want to look through your punctuation guidebook to realise that it was actually a question instead of a statement. This was a question thrown to you after all your comparisons between workers with good and bad skills. I was asking you if one that works in Venture Era is equilavent to having bad skills. If your answer to my question is a "No". Then why were you ranting on and on about workers with good skills and bad skills?
Do point out the exact statements, or you are just showing yourself to be incoherent.
Well, am I coherent now?
Given good skills, yes. Definitely. And using your own logic, are you sure everyone can definitely earn from MLM (means greater than zero income) during a financial crisis? EVERYONE?
No. Definitely not everyone can earn more than zero income from MLM. Which is why I didn't say it. I dare you to quote me saying that again. However, the possibility of earning zero income is almost zero.
Are you sure all good business owners can successfully increase their own product range? Are you sure they can create opportunities for themselves to enter a new market? Are you sure they can establish their brand name as the leader in the industry? Are you sure when the economy recovers they will become the leader with greater market share and more well known? Are you sure?
When you are a good business owner, definitely.
Firstly, you are stereotyping. I'm not exactly sure whether all good business owners can definitely achieve all of the above. Especially when you have other competitors that have good business owners as well. Even if we assume that all good business owners can achieve all of the above, not everyone can be good business owners. And being a good business owners are better off than being a MLMer. Duh. I wasn't comparing them anyway. I was merely saying that being a MLMer is a decent job. I'm advising everyone to try accepting MLM instead of closing their ears even before anything is being said or they miss what might have been a great opportunity.
VE is a company. I'm talking about MLMers, not VE. Please stick to the topic. Many MLMers that come to this forum tells that they are running their own business.
As I have said earlier, if Venture Era becomes more competitive, the agents will benefit as well. I am sticking to the topic.
VE is owned by a boss. MLMers are salesman working under this boss.
Yes, VE is owned by a boss. However, MLMers are not neccessarily salesmen.
A one-liner grunt from you without any supporting statements. Credibility = zero.
Alright if you need me to spell it out. Here goes:
"Good skills, I don't see how MLMers are much better off than those climbing the corporate ladder. And it is extremely obvious they cannot compete at all with true business owners."
MLMers are not necessarily better off than those who earn fixed salary who are climbing the coporate ladder. So you are right. But I have to say that you are generalising all MLMers to lose out to true business owners. Definitely not all MLMers are better than business owners, neither are they definitely worse off. A Business Associate Manager for example can earn up to $15k a month, and he might not have to own the company. (FYI, Business Associate Manager in Venture Era is an agent as well) Whereas true business owners of SMEs might not even earn half as much.
And by saying this, you are effectively telling us that given bad skills, you can still earn money in MLM. Means any Tom Dick and Harry can be in MLM and definitely earn money. That, clearly, is not what most MLMers want to tell us; they tell us here that not everyone can earn in MLM.
The MLMers are right. Perhaps in their context, earn money = decent salary. But in my context, earn money = more than zero income. And yes, given bad skills. one can still earn money in MLM in Venture Era. Even if you can't sell nuts, you can still depend on your downlines who can sell to get commission from. Even if they can't sell, you will still have your manager to depend on to make the sales, which you still get to earn comission from. They won't be your manager if they can't make a single sale, because they would have to made a certain amount of sales to reach the position of manager. However, by saying this, I am not saying that you can survive off these commissions earned from others, but definitely it is money.
Please make yourself clear.
Am I still not clear enough?
Which is why, being in MLM does not equate to you running your own business. You are getting contradictory. Pls refer back to the top.
Indeed, technically the MLMers are not running their own business. But as I have mentioned enough, there is a parallel. How have I been contradicting myself?
And again. Point out where I equated: Working in VE = Bad Skills?Well, again, point out where did I accuse you of equating that.
-
Originally posted by elementalangel:
Being a real boss, you get full control of your inventory. Not wait for your parent company
Do u hear any lame ass share holders claiming they are the owners of a company ? I guess that wouild only occur in VE.Well there is a parallel. But ultimately being a MLMer in VE does not equate to being a real boss.
-
Originally posted by seotiblizzard:
Why some people dont get it? Still come out and argue, then kena beaten, then disappear, come out and argue again.
Simply because I'm not convinced.
-
Yes you are right but you are getting nowhere because what you have said is irrelevant. I was drawing a parallel between "owning a business" and "being an agent as a MLMer". You can hire agents to work for you even if you are a MLMer, that is parallel to employing workers just like what a boss does.
Parallel, but it's not running your own business.
I'm not drawing parallels. I'm against MLMers who claimed that it is running their own business, and that was what I have stated right at the very front. So, it is you who has been saying irrelevant stuff.Yes indeed there are different types of career paths in MNCs. Managerial positions are definitely limited. You are right again. But in Venture Era, it is a completely different story because you do get promoted into managerial positions based on merit instead of nomination. So I guess I have made myself clear enough that being in Venture Era is better in a sense that you have less competition from others vying for the same position.
Trying flailingly to cover your lack of knowledge now eh... You have zero competition for technical path.
I sincerely apologise for making a fool out of myself before checking out the actual meanings of "passive income" and "active income". Staffs of Venture Era are all earning active income. So you are wrong about assuming that they are earning passive income.
Where did I say about they earning passive income? I'm telling you that it is the MLMers who told us this.
Sorry but I'll have to say that the MLMers are earning commissions off their downlines, so these downlines' sales are directing affecting their uplines' [the agent] salaries. In a way, these hired people are working for the agents.
So? It's still not running your own business.
Please read carefully. Try to find out the meaning of that word in red before commenting further. So yes, distributors and sub-contractors can have their own brand names too.
As you have said earlier:
"There is a clear difference between being an agent or owning your own business. One, you employ people, you have your own brand name. The other, you work for other people's brand name."
And so, I was pointing out to you that no, not all businesses sell goods with their own brand names, though they have their companys' names.
Yes, but it is still their own brand name. Good example, Sasa is a brand name, but they sell other brands. Duh.
You might want to do more research regarding Nike's sub-contractors. To give you a head start, you can find out more about Tae Kwang Vina, a Korean owned and operated footwear manufacturer situated in Vietnam. And this is only one of the 700 over companies being contracted to Nike.
And the sub-contractors will still have their own brand. Do you think that they will sub-contract to a company with no branding, without any sense of quality?
Simply put, they can also brand themselves as manufacturers for Nike Shoes to potential companies like Reebok. It's a branding.
Of course I do understand what is meant by a business. Sub-contracting is a business. No doubt about that. They are agents contracted to the respective MNCs to produce goods for them. Just like how MLMers are distributing goods for the company and earning a commission. There is a parallel over here. And of course I also do understand what is a brand name. That is why I've said that "owners do not necessarily have their own brand names", just like Nike's sub-contractors.
Rubbish. I have already explained above, they still have to have a brand name. It's not just simply a company's name, or a factory's name.
Of course I can.
- Salesmanship.
- Network.
- Leadership abilities.
- Public relations.
In a recession, how are you going to increase your market value within? That was what I had been pointing out.
Omg, I'll die if I have to explain everything in black and white if you can't infer. When Venture Era invests in new products, they are increasing their competitiveness. And when Venture Era becomes more competitive, the agents benefit as well because they are selling competitive products.
So it is the agents. All along I have been telling your it is VE's business; it's not your own business.
Do I need to repeat that many times?
No. They can be marketing managers, marketing group managers, marketing associate managers etc. And their job scope does not include selling the products directly. So they are not salesmen. But of course, they can still choose to sell the products.
Still different name for salesman.
Just now how an insurance agent or bank agent can have different names. In short, a salesman given different names.
AND again, if you are going to be promoted to a manager, you are still not running your own business with your own brand name.
You did not say that working in "VE doesn't equate to not having good skills". Similarly, I never did accused you of saying it. I dare you to quote me making the false accusation.
"Firstly, working in VE doesn't equate to not having good skills."
Well I wasn't accusing if you were referring to the above line.
"Working in VE = Bad Skills?"
If the above line was what you were intending to quote. Then perhaps you might want to look through your punctuation guidebook to realise that it was actually a question instead of a statement. This was a question thrown to you after all your comparisons between workers with good and bad skills. I was asking you if one that works in Venture Era is equilavent to having bad skills. If your answer to my question is a "No". Then why were you ranting on and on about workers with good skills and bad skills?
Well, again, point out where did I accuse you of equating that.
It seems that you are getting dumber.
If you are questioning me about that point, you are accusing. Simple as that. If you cannot find anything that I have said before that equates the two, then why the hell did you even bring it up for discussion? Out of point.
Why did you even need to ask? When I have clearly stated both situations of having good skills in VE, and having bad skills in VE. Asking the obvious?
Well, am I coherent now?
Obviously not. Why bring up something unrelated?
No. Definitely not everyone can earn more than zero income from MLM. Which is why I didn't say it. I dare you to quote me saying that again. However, the possibility of earning zero income is almost zero.
So back to my sentence: "Given bad skills, once retrenched, indeed, it would be hard to find a job, thus zero income. And given bad skills, you will indeed earn zero income in MLM."
Are you still going to tell me it is hypothetical?
And are you saying that without totally bad skills, the possibility of earning zero income is indeed almost zero. Are you going to give that guarantee to anyone who joins?
Firstly, you are stereotyping. I'm not exactly sure whether all good business owners can definitely achieve all of the above. Especially when you have other competitors that have good business owners as well. Even if we assume that all good business owners can achieve all of the above, not everyone can be good business owners. And being a good business owners are better off than being a MLMer. Duh. I wasn't comparing them anyway. I was merely saying that being a MLMer is a decent job. I'm advising everyone to try accepting MLM instead of closing their ears even before anything is being said or they miss what might have been a great opportunity.
If they cannot achieve those, they are not good business owners.
Even when your competitors are good owners, there are bound to be some who are bad, and thus you will take their market share.
And take note: I've been comparing between business owners, MLMers and employees all along. Unless you are (again) not being coherent and cannot understand what was said, I'm repeating now that I'm against MLMers who come ahead to tell us that they are running their own business.
Yes, VE is owned by a boss. However, MLMers are not neccessarily salesmen.
Let me repeat again. MLMers are not running their own business.
MLMers are not necessarily better off than those who earn fixed salary who are climbing the coporate ladder. So you are right. But I have to say that you are generalising all MLMers to lose out to true business owners. Definitely not all MLMers are better than business owners, neither are they definitely worse off. A Business Associate Manager for example can earn up to $15k a month, and he might not have to own the company. (FYI, Business Associate Manager in Venture Era is an agent as well) Whereas true business owners of SMEs might not even earn half as much.
Business owners of SMEs who don't earn that much, are not good business owners. I'm comparing between good business owners and good MLMers.
The MLMers are right. Perhaps in their context, earn money = decent salary. But in my context, earn money = more than zero income. And yes, given bad skills. one can still earn money in MLM in Venture Era. Even if you can't sell nuts, you can still depend on your downlines who can sell to get commission from. Even if they can't sell, you will still have your manager to depend on to make the sales, which you still get to earn comission from. They won't be your manager if they can't make a single sale, because they would have to made a certain amount of sales to reach the position of manager. However, by saying this, I am not saying that you can survive off these commissions earned from others, but definitely it is money.
Given bad skills, how would you even convince people to be your downlines?
Epic fail.
Indeed, technically the MLMers are not running their own business. But as I have mentioned enough, there is a parallel. How have I been contradicting myself?
There's no difference between MLMers and salesman, or if climbing the corporate ladder, there's no difference with climbing it in the MNC as well. Following your logic, there are indeed parallels to running a business in a lot of jobs. It doesn't give MLM any extra advantages. Bank insurance agents, property agents, head salesman, supervisor in MacDonalds, etc all get the same experience.
In short, I'm still standing by my first post to you.
Being a MLMer in VE is not a rewarding business; it's not even their own business to begin with, yet they claim they are doing their own business. That's one thing I'm against.
Second thing which has been failed to be brought out is that being an MLMer in VE helps you build passive income. Really duh...
1) Claiming that it is their own business, and clearly not drawing parallels like you did, which is clearly more reasonable. Just read back the posts and you will understand.
2) You have already agreed.
So what's wrong?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Parallel, but it's not running your own business.
I'm not drawing parallels. I'm against MLMers who claimed that it is running their own business, and that was what I have stated right at the very front. So, it is you who has been saying irrelevant stuff.Well and I've been explaining that there's a parallel as to why they are saying that. If you don't like it then that's your problem. I haven't been irrelevant in any sense.
Trying flailingly to cover your lack of knowledge now eh... You have zero competition for technical path.
I am not covering up for a supposedly "lack of knowledge". Why don't you admit that you didn't understand the things that I've said? You could have asked and I'll gladly explain. I mentioned nothing about technical path for your information.
Where did I say about they earning passive income? I'm telling you that it is the MLMers who told us this.
"Second thing which has been failed to be brought out is that being an MLMer in VE helps you build passive income. Really duh...
"There. In your face.
So? It's still not running your own business.
Yup. It's not running your own business. So? My point was, agents can also hire agents to work for them.
Yes, but it is still their own brand name. Good example, Sasa is a brand name, but they sell other brands. Duh.
Nope. Not all companies have their own brands. You should really consider doing some research. I did gave you one example didn't I?And the sub-contractors will still have their own brand. Do you think that they will sub-contract to a company with no branding, without any sense of quality?
Yes they can have their own brand, but not necessarily. Research on the example that I gave you. If it's not enough you can ask for more and I'll find them for you. Do you understand the difference between branding and quality? There is no link between these two.
Simply put, they can also brand themselves as manufacturers for Nike Shoes to potential companies like Reebok. It's a branding.
Wait a minute. Do you understand the meaning of branding? You can't brand yourself that way. Simply because your company is your company, it is not Nike or Reebok.
Rubbish. I have already explained above, they still have to have a brand name. It's not just simply a company's name, or a factory's name.
You didn't. Do your research. Find out about the example that I gave you and also find out what is meant by branding.
In a recession, how are you going to increase your market value within? That was what I had been pointing out.
Well you didn't make it clear enough because you obviously said "Can you even describe how working in MLM will increase your market value? Sell more products? Please la." And so my answer was to this statement.
Ok now you've brought up a new question. Firstly, I don't think why a person's market value cannot be increased during a recession, be it working in MLM or not. As to how, there can be many ways, such as learning how to sell things even during bad times. If you can sell products during bad times, there is much to show about your salesmanship. And by saying salesmanship, it is not just literally being a salesman, but also the ability to sell yourself to companies when you're in for an interview. Of course different people can have different ways of increasing market value. This is just an example. And not everyone can increase their market value during bad times. Same applies to business owners and employed workers.
So it is the agents. All along I have been telling your it is VE's business; it's not your own business.Do I need to repeat that many times?
And all the while I've been agreeing. Aren't you silly?
Still different name for salesman.
Just now how an insurance agent or bank agent can have different names. In short, a salesman given different names.
Eh... Can you stop ignoring my points? Or are you pretending not to see it? Ok, I shall repeat one more time. Make sure you register this in your head this time.
Being a MLMer can be marketing managers, marketing group managers, marketing associate managers etc. And their job scope does not include selling the products directly. So they are not salesmen.
AND again, if you are going to be promoted to a manager, you are still not running your own business with your own brand name.
And yes I have agreed countless times.
It seems that you are getting dumber.
I wonder if you're qualified to say that.
If you are questioning me about that point, you are accusing.
Hi Mr. Stereotyping-cum-sweeping-statement. You seriously need some lessons on GP skills especially argumentative essay writing skills.
Simple as that. If you cannot find anything that I have said before that equates the two, then why the hell did you even bring it up for discussion? Out of point.
Why can't I? And obviously I brought it up for a reason. You were talking on and on about people with good and bad skills irrelevently. Can't I ask you that question to bring you back to the main topic?
Why did you even need to ask? When I have clearly stated both situations of having good skills in VE, and having bad skills in VE. Asking the obvious?
Erm... Haha? Don't claim that you have clearly stated something that you didn't. Don't insult your own intelligence. Don't even try to copy and paste something and try to argue your way out coz that's just gonna make you look funnier.
Obviously not. Why bring up something unrelated?
That's because someone's living in self denial. Ignoring my points, fully focused on personal attacks. That's why he doesn't see what I've said as being coherent. I'm humiliating you too, I'm not denying. But at least I can multi-task.
So bad to my sentence: "Given bad skills, once retrenched, indeed, it would be hard to find a job, thus zero income. And given bad skills, you will indeed earn zero income in MLM."
Are you still going to tell me it is hypothetical?
Well... you're getting close, almost there. Keep it up! Given bad skills, you can still earn money in VE, but you can't live off it. So that's not zero income.
And are you saying that without totally bad skills, the possibility of earning zero income is indeed almost zero. Are you going to give that guarantee to anyone who joins?
Yup. I can guarantee that. Unless he's out to challenge me by signing up and not attending any single appointment.
If they cannot achieve those, they are not good business owners.
Ever heard of Oligopolistic and Monopolistic competitive market structures? Firms in these market structures might not be the leading companies in their industries, neither can they afford to come out with new products, but that doesn't translate into being bad owners. Because every industry has it's own characteristics that seperate itself from others, bounded by their own restrictions such as imperfect knowledge and barriers to entry. Every business has it's unique way of running.
Even when your competitors are good owners, there are bound to be some who are bad, and thus you will take their market share.
Ok here's some basic microeconomic lessons for you. Only firms in the Monopoly and Oligopoly Market Structure can gain market share because of the domination of market power. Whereas firms in the Monopolistic Competitive Market Structure do not and cannot gain market share simply because there are too many of such firms, their market share is insignificant. The majority of firms belong to the Monopolistic Competitive Market Structure. Singapore itself is dominated by SMEs. Taking over of market share is thus not valid unless you are the vast minority of the owners of mega firms. Thus, even when there are competitors that are bad, you can't take their market share, unless you're a mega firm.
And take note: I've been comparing between business owners, MLMers and employees all along. Unless you are (again) not being coherent and cannot understand what was said, I'm repeating now that I'm against MLMers who come ahead to tell us that they are running their own business.
Yes yes yes they are not owning their own businesses, I'll help you correct them ok? So have you come to a conclusion to whether MLM is a decent job?
Let me repeat again. MLMers are not running their own business.
Wow. Chill! I've agreed with you since multiple posts ago. Ever since the first time I mentioned "parallel".
Business owners of SMEs who don't earn that much, are not good business owners. I'm comparing between good business owners and good MLMers.
LOL?!!! Do you know what you've just said was downright hilarious? DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS SME? How much do you expect SMEs to earn given their size are market share? So if your "good business owners" do not include owners of SMEs, then who do they include?
Given bad skills, how would you even convince people to be your downlines?
Epic fail.
WOOHOO! YOU ARE NOT THE ONE CONVINCING PEOPLE TO BE YOUR DOWNLINE! LOL! YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK AGAIN. PAWNED!!
There's no difference between MLMers and salesman, or if climbing the corporate ladder, there's no difference with climbing it in the MNC as well. Following your logic, there are indeed parallels to running a business in a lot of jobs. It doesn't give MLM any extra advantages. Bank insurance agents, property agents, head salesman, supervisor in MacDonalds, etc all get the same experience.
Hi Mr. Stereotyping-cum-sweeping-statement-cum-points-ignorer. If you want to argue, at least make sense. Aim at my points. One by one. Counter them with sensible and valid points. Make sure you answer my points!!! That's another GP lesson. Always be relevant!
MLMers are not all salesmen! HELLO HELLO HELLO? Get this through that densed layer of air and into your brain. And stop repeating it again.
There's a BIG BIG BIG DIFFERENCE in climbing the coporate ladder in VE and MNCs. And I have said it. Climbing in VE is based on MERIT. BASED ON MERIT!! HELLO!!! GET THIS IN!! No nominations required. No limited vacancies for the positions. Once you meet the quota you will AUTOMATICALLY GET PROMOTED. This is the advantage in VE.
In short, I'm still standing by my first post to you.
1) Claiming that it is their own business, and clearly not drawing parallels like you did, which is clearly more reasonable. Just read back the posts and you will understand.
2) You have already agreed.
So what's wrong?
There's nothing wrong if you want to be precised!!! I've already given in to you since god-knows-when regarding this point. You want to know what's wrong? Refer to your first post!
Being a MLMer in VE is not a rewarding business.
You have not been convinced that it is a rewarding business yet. So I'm trying to prove it to you.
Second thing which has been failed to be brought out is that being an MLMer in VE helps you build passive income. Really duh...
Regarding the income, I've clarified that they are earning active income. So this is solved too.
-
There's nothing wrong if you want to be precised!!! I've already given in to you since god-knows-when regarding this point. You want to know what's wrong? Refer to your first post!
Do I need to repost everything to let you see how you try to twist by claiming that one has to take away the technicality? And how you are desperately trying to tell us (wrongly) about what you know about branding?
Taking away the technicality, even posting in sgforums is doing your own business. What's the difference with doing own business in MLM? Or doing your own business in a MNC? Anything you do is your own business as well. Heck, even playing games such as Sim Theme Hospital is running your own business well! You can claim that you learn crisis management in the game... Big DUH.
This is not about viewing it with a more open heart; this is being self-deluding. Clearly, MLMers who came into this thread to tell us it is their own business made no reference to technicality; they are referring to real businesses.
And drawing parallels to running a business? You can draw parallels for many other jobs as well; you just need to open your eyes and heart. Duh...
You have not been convinced that it is a rewarding business yet. So I'm trying to prove it to you.
It is not a rewarding business because it is not a business in the first place. Up to you if you want to say it is a rewarding job, because it is good for anyone to view their job in a positive light. But it's still not a business.
Regarding the income, I've clarified that they are earning active income. So this is solved too.
Yes, but as I have told you, I'm against those who said they are earning passive income in MLM, not you, because you have been convinced otherwise.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Do I need to repost everything to let you see how you try to twist by claiming that one has to take away the technicality? And how you are desperately trying to tell us (wrongly) about what you know about branding?
Can you differentiate between twisting facts and drawing a comparison? As for branding, you yourself know best whether how much you know.
Taking away the technicality, even posting in sgforums is doing your own business. What's the difference with doing own business in MLM? Or doing your own business in a MNC? Anything you do is your own business as well. Heck, even playing games such as Sim Theme Hospital is running your own business well! You can claim that you learn crisis management in the game... Big DUH.
Playing with pun now? Look who's twisting.
This is not about viewing it with a more open heart; this is being self-deluding. Clearly, MLMers who came into this thread to tell us it is their own business made no reference to technicality; they are referring to real businesses.
And so I agree that it's not their business. Since the beginning of time, I'm only advising everyone to view this job with a open heart, don't just completely close your doors on them. That has nothing to do with self-deluding. If you don't look at things in an objective view, choosing to take a subjective stand instead, then you're not viewing it with an open heart and you might lose out on possible opportunities.
And drawing parallels to running a business? You can draw parallels for many other jobs as well; you just need to open your eyes and heart. Duh...
Now you finally get it.
It is not a rewarding business because it is not a business in the first place. Up to you if you want to say it is a rewarding job, because it is good for anyone to view their job in a positive light. But it's still not a business.
Still insisting on your " it is not a business". Lol. Don't you have anything else to say?
Yes, but as I have told you, I'm against those who said they are earning passive income in MLM, not you, because you have been convinced otherwise.
Glad to hear that. After all I'm just trying to convince people that it's not a bad job after all and there's no harm giving it a try.
-
Can you differentiate between twisting facts and drawing a comparison? As for branding, you yourself know best whether how much you know.
Still need me to explain to you what is branding? You yourself know how warped you are and how much you have shot yourself in the foot. A MLMer under VE works under the VE brand, and not his own. He himself has zero branding, unless... you wan to consider branding himself as a VE agent, which is -.-"
Whereas for your previous example, a company manufacturing shoes for Nike has its own brand, and could, for example, brand itself as the manufacturer of Nike shoes, or even other brands of shoes. Another example I have given you is Sasa, who sell other brands, but brand itself as a one-stop selling location for a lot of brands.
Playing with pun now? Look who's twisting.
This is using your own logic. Glad you understood how you attempted to twist.
And so I agree that it's not their business. Since the beginning of time, I'm only advising everyone to view this job with a open heart, don't just completely close your doors on them. That has nothing to do with self-deluding. If you don't look at things in an objective view, choosing to take a subjective stand instead, then you're not viewing it with an open heart and you might lose out on possible opportunities.
I have been very objective.
You have been subjective by telling me to take away the technicality. I'm objective by looking at hard facts and technicality.
Try again.
Now you finally get it.
I got it all along. You still don't get it.
Still insisting on your " it is not a business". Lol. Don't you have anything else to say?
You are unable to convince anyone including yourself that it is a business. Anything else to say?
If you agree it is not a business, then you are definitely wrong in saying it is a rewarding business.
Duh.
Glad to hear that. After all I'm just trying to convince people that it's not a bad job after all and there's no harm giving it a try.
Giving it a try is one thing. I'm not stopping anyone.
Trying to self-delude that it is the path to financial freedom, the path to getting lots of passive income, that it is your own business or you are doing your own business, like what many of the previous forumers who came here to tout, is another.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Still need me to explain to you what is branding? You yourself know how warped you are and how much you have shot yourself in the foot. A MLMer under VE works under the VE brand, and not his own. He himself has zero branding, unless... you wan to consider branding himself as a VE agent, which is -.-"
Lol. You just self pawned.
And the sub-contractors will still have their own brand. Do you think that they will sub-contract to a company with no branding, without any sense of quality?
Simply put, they can also brand themselves as manufacturers for Nike Shoes to potential companies like Reebok. It's a branding.
Ouch!
Whereas for your previous example, a company manufacturing shoes for Nike has its own brand, and could, for example, brand itself as the manufacturer of Nike shoes, or even other brands of shoes. Another example I have given you is Sasa, who sell other brands, but brand itself as a one-stop selling location for a lot of brands.
Ouch! Ouch!
This is using your own logic. Glad you understood how you attempted to twist.
I have been very objective.
Triple kill!
You have been subjective by telling me to take away the technicality. I'm objective by looking at hard facts and technicality.
Hardcoreblizzard is owning!
Try again.
After you pick yourself up.
I got it all along. You still don't get it.
You are unable to convince anyone including yourself that it is a business. Anything else to say?
Is your brain bigger than my fist?
If you agree it is not a business, then you are definitely wrong in saying it is a rewarding business.
Pardon me while I laugh.
Duh.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Giving it a try is one thing. I'm not stopping anyone.
Trying to self-delude that it is the path to financial freedom, the path to getting lots of passive income, that it is your own business or you are doing your own business, like what many of the previous forumers who came here to tout, is another.
Lol. I don't even need to argue to make you look silly.
I don't want you to die without knowing why. It'll be interesting to see how you struggle to challenge the dictionary though!
BRAND -> A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a manufacturer.
OBJECTIVE-> Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.TRADEMARK-> Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.You could have prevented humiliating yourself had you done your homework.Sorry if I've been too harsh on you. -
wow, more self-pwnage by yourself. EPIC Fail by you
Branding yourself as a VE agent is just something on your resume, on yourself. Duh. It's not a brand name. I was waiting to laugh at you if you agreed that it is the same as branding in a business.
Let's look at how you killed youself:
1st self-pwnage
BRAND -> A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a manufacturer.
TRADEMARK-> Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
you wan to consider branding himself as a VE agent, which is -.-"
Lol. You just self pawned.
So your own name is a trademark, a distinctive name, or you are a product, a manufacturer????
You mean your own name is distintive? No one else can have the same name???
Second self pwnageBRAND -> A trademark or distinctive name identifying a product or a manufacturer.
TRADEMARK-> Abbr. TM A name, symbol, or other device identifying a product, officially registered and legally restricted to the use of the owner or manufacturer.
Secondly, owners do not necessarily have their own brand names. Ever heard of distributors and sub-contractors?
That is why I've said that "owners do not necessarily have their own brand names", just like Nike's sub-contractors.
Sub-contractors of manufacturing Nike shoes are manufacturers
Distributors have their own brand names as well, e.g. P&GCan you tell me a manufacturer that does not have a distinctive name?
Simply saying there are without any examples doesn't give you any credibility at all. Was that how you wrote your essays in JC or thesis in uni (if you even made it there)?Your self-pwnage wouldn't have been made worse if you had done your homework to compare your definitions with what you have written
3rd self pwnage
You have been subjective by telling me to take away the technicality. I'm objective by looking at hard facts and technicality.
Hardcoreblizzard is owning!
Don't just look at the technical terms. If what they claimed has offended you in technical terms of the words "own business", then you might want to look at in with a more open heart.
OBJECTIVE-> Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
4th self pwnage
If you agree it is not a business, then you are definitely wrong in saying it is a rewarding business.
Pardon me while I laugh.
personally I feel that being a MLM in VE may or may not be a rewarding business depending on the individuals.
You have not been convinced that it is a rewarding business yet. So I'm trying to prove it to you.
5th self pwnage
Giving it a try is one thing. I'm not stopping anyone.
Trying to self-delude that it is the path to financial freedom, the path to getting lots of passive income, that it is your own business or you are doing your own business, like what many of the previous forumers who came here to tout, is another.
Lol. I don't even need to argue to make you look silly.
I don't want you to die without knowing why. It'll be interesting to see how you struggle to challenge the dictionary though!
Looks like you can't understand simple english to see who said what
For the rest, just saying that you owned without even giving a simple explanation just makes you look stupid and lose all credibility.
Happy wasting your time in MLM ok? If you can't handle the facts, no point quoting and saying that you won.
And happy self-pwnage
Really, I'm sure you didn't try very hard to make your look more and more stupid with every post.
Lastly, it's interesting that you still do not understand how to use forum functions by the 11th post. Most other forumers already could by then Sorry if I'm too harsh on you. You really humiliated yourself to the point where everyone can see it so clearly. Thanks for doing the homework to humiliate yourself
-
actually, to begin with, no mlmers, especially those who post here has any credibility?
isnt it strange they always talk about potential and telling people that its no harm trying, when after all these years none succeeded and went missing?
cycle repeats, we waste time on each nth mlmers we tell the facts to
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
actually, to begin with, no mlmers, especially those who post here has any credibility?
isnt it strange they always talk about potential and telling people that its no harm trying, when after all these years none succeeded and went missing?
cycle repeats, we waste time on each nth mlmers we tell the facts to
You might want to consider that a large majority of the MLMers that are posting here are likely to be teenagers, thus the credibility.
Maybe it's a little harsh to say that all that tried had failed. There are definitely people who are doing well, otherwise it wouldn't have made any sense for anyone to stay in that company.
-
Given also the large majority of people who are lured into MLM are teenagers, that answer the question of professionalism and success
-
Originally posted by Hardcoreblizzard:
You might want to consider that a large majority of the MLMers that are posting here are likely to be teenagers, thus the credibility.
Maybe it's a little harsh to say that all that tried had failed. There are definitely people who are doing well, otherwise it wouldn't have made any sense for anyone to stay in that company.
So my qns is, how long will that success last?
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
Given also the large majority of people who are lured into MLM are teenagers, that answer the question of professionalism and success
Look at the 5 self-pwnage he did and you can see his professionalism
But no matter what, I will still wish him success. Happy CNY :D