Bad science - The Guardian (click)
I read a really interesting article I read this morning on The Guardian’s Comment is free website:
‘A case of never letting the source spoil a good story’
subtitle: Perhaps it’s too embarrassing for some writers to risk linking to primary sources that readers can check for themselves
Wherein Ben Goldacre concludes:
But more than anything, because linking to sources is such an easy thing to do and the motivations for avoiding links are so dubious, I’ve detected myself using a new rule of thumb: if you don’t link to primary sources, I just don’t trust you.
Good on him!
Providing original sources to back up assertions seems unfashionable for some bloggers and many internet commenters. I guess my background in journalism, and particularly political journalism where claims of ‘I was misquoted’ or other cavils are deployed in the heat of political rivalry, makes me careful to be able to substantiate claims, or to choose language to phrase such claims to properly reflect any ambiguity that exists.
I know I’ve annoyed some people with my ‘cross-threading’ and linking to original sources or background material. (I know because they complain about it.) But quoting sources really is a professional way to extend an argument, in my view, as we’ve discussed.
Just last night I saw some speculation online about a property spruiker by the name of Sean Wood — and a question about whether he’d actually been connected with a questionable scheme called ‘Blue Peak Wealth Management’, to sell ‘licences’ to property finders … and also to sell apartment developments and other property ‘investments’ to people seeking ‘property education’.
PropertyTalk forum Moderator ‘Perry’ asked the question of another poster ‘Sharpie’:
Can you substantiate your assertion about Sean Wood being
associated with Blue Peak? Wasn’t Blue peak a Phil Jones and
Steve Goodey run/owned/operated/fronted outfit?
Such is the apparent stigma attached to the Blue Peak fiasco that some people, including Perry, were questioning the claim of Sean Wood’s involvement in Blue Peak Wealth Management. (BP ended in tears, by the way, according to this article in the Sunday Star Times: Blue Peak faces angry backlash.)
I recall that Sean Wood was a promotional face of the business. He was also one of three directors of Blue Peak and the sole shareholder/director of one-third Blue Peak shareholder Citylink Property Masters Ltd. At the same time, it seems, he was acting as property spruiker Richmastery’s ‘Property Mentoring Manager’.
This is easily demonstrated with a link to one of his sales letters … in this case for the ‘Saffron’ apartment development offered to the public as ‘Auckland’s second highest building’ in 2007 — without a building consent — and a quick search of the Companies Office records. The Sunday Star Times reported on Wood’s sales techniques, and directorship of Blue Peak, in these terms:
At a seminar organised by Richmastery last week, the units were being offered for sale through a company called Blue Peak Wealth Management, which is one-third owned by Richmastery founder Phil Jones.
… At last week’s seminar, Blue Peak director Sean Wood encouraged potential investors to sign sale and purchase agreements for the units on the spot, [Comment: On the spot!] saying that their price would be increased by 10% the following day, and if investors signed up on the night they would make an immediate capital gain. — SST on Saffron launch 24June2007
So, no controversy there, if one links to sources. Hard-selling Sean Wood was clearly associated with the Richmastery and Blue Peak enterprises selling ‘investments’ to property education ‘students’. [Disclosure: I was party to a copyright lawsuit against Richmastery — details here.]
Thinking about it, I’m surprised there’s not more real stigma attached to Sean Wood as a salesman of the leaky/rotten homes Sacramento Apartments about which he boasted he sold 149 units, according to a 2008 article in the NZ Listener — gee, I wonder if he used those same hard-sell ‘sign the contract on the spot, the price is going up 10% tomorrow’ techniques to pitch Sacramento units?
Going for gold
By Matt Nippert NZ Listener 22 March 2008
It’s Monday night at the Spencer on Byron Hotel on Auckland’s North Shore, and a red Ferrari is parked conspicuously on the forecourt. The owner, a tanned man in a black and gold shirt with the top button undone to display a thick gold chain, isn’t shy about where he got his bling. Sean Wood‘s Ferrari carries the personalised plate PR0PAT.
Although property-market experts are predicting the housing market is heading for a storm, Wood sees more than a silver lining: he gives the impression the entire cloud is 24-carat gold. “All property has growth,” the microphoned Wood tells the 20 people attending his property-market seminar, “Your Questions Answered”.
The market, Wood confidently predicts, is “not going to go down”.
But first, introductions. Wood is a former real estate agent. “Have you guys heard about Sacramento in Botany Downs? It’s been in the news recently,” he says. (The development in an Auckland suburb was recently described by the New Zealand Herald as “New Zealand’s largest rotting housing disaster”.) “I sold 149 of those units,” he says proudly. But now? Wood says he’s retired and owns 35 properties with a combined value of $15 million.
He puts his success down to involvement in a consortium called Richmastery – and he devotes more time to urging seminar participants to sign up for an $8000 mentoring programme run by the same outfit than answering questions. … read the full article
Sure, Sean Wood was a real estate agent, not an architect, but wow, boasting about selling Sacramento apartments, which have shipwrecked so many peoples’ hopes and dreams, seems pretty ‘off’ to me, personally.
Anyway, I realize that I have, myself, already adopted Ben Greenacre’s rule of thumb: If you don’t link to primary sources, I just don’t trust you. And, I guess, if you’ve got a demonstrable track record like Sean Wood’s, sorry … I don’t trust you either, MUFFIT.
– P
+ UPDATE: A couple more ‘sources’ on Sean Wood and his track record popped up today: check this news story: “The company and director [Sean Wood] were found guilty in Manukau District Court of undertaking unconsented building work and failing to comply with a notice to fix and fined $30,000.”
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi © 2011 All rights reserved.
[…] mode and castigating the spruikers — the Shaun Stennings, Dean Letfuses, Steve Goodeys and Sean Woods of the world — more stridently and with more fire and damnation as ‘scam artists’, […]
One of the major dilemmas which the PropertyTalk forum
Moderators face – or rather are not in a position to
face – is being the arbiters of what is fact, speculation,
supposition, etc. Even when it seems prudent to ask,
and a reply is received, Caveat lector applies. In the
case of Sean Wood, two contrary posits were made.
‘Sharpie’ was asked for corroboration (links to infor-
mation source?). Several others stepped up to the mark
with the requisite evidence.
As Peter has made a reference to the post, I add another
part:
Thanks for your comment Perry, agreed.
Caveat lector (let the reader beware) is indeed apt.
And in the case of stroppy bully-boys determined to intimidate ‘platforms for dialogue’ such as PropertyTalk into a collusive silence, ‘caveat writer’ and ‘caveat forum-hoster’ also apply.
But, one’s got to do what needs doing …
– Peter
Perhaps Habeas Testimonium would’ve been
more/just as apt?
Oh, nice to see the apology from HermanZ! That
must’ve warmed the cockles of your heart.
I guess today’s post is all about Habeas Testimonium (which I think of as the principle of ‘produce the evidence’) — isn’t it Perry?
Yeah, good on Herman. Very gracious. I don’t think we had a cross word, really, but I knew he felt impatient with what I was trying to do at times. I got comprehensively slimed by some sockpuppets, but he was never one of them. – P
Look what drifted in today… it seems relevant.
Please note: I am in no way delighting in this man’s ‘misfortunes’, but I find myself strongly agreeing with the comments the Judge made in this case, which saw ‘property guru’ Sean Wood punished for breaching the Building Act:
Yup, he was a cowboy. But I bet many of his clients haven’t got a clue …
Sources: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10515696
More detail on the case here from Manukau City Council which includes this:
Jackson’s comments imply a cynical, deliberate breach of the rules. That’s a pretty damning character assessment, it seems to me.
The Building Consents Authority celebrating the Sean Wood/City Link Properties Ltd case under the headline “Successful Building Prosecution” said this, giving some scale to the changes which show they were not a trivial matter:
Obviously the Judge agreed. Guilty.
Now, let’s admit that nobody ever achieved anything without making a few mistakes, but for a local authority to bother prosecuting you — and what’s with the ‘failing to comply with a notice to fix’? — was that a bit of brinksmanship? (Arrogance or Stupidity? You decide) … and a Judge to find you guilty as charged, impose a ‘signal-sending’ fine and make comments like that about you, well, it says something about how you operate.
Add this to the evidence in the original post and I think we can say we’re building up a picture of salesman Sean Wood. No thanks.
Google has the mantra of “not doing evil”.
Has propertytalk been on balance a fora for good or evil?
In my view, Sean Wood, Dean Leftus, Steve Goodey, Ron Roy Fong et al are arguably much better known because of the exposure these fora have given them over the years.
Under the guise of giving independent financial advice, they used propertytalk.com to relentlessly pitch generally ruinous products to naive newbies.
The owners and moderators have colluded with the spruikers (who are of course the main advertisers) to minimise scrutiny and debate about dubious marketing and products.
For this, I think the owners and moderators of this site should be deeply ashamed. They should search their conscience about their actions (or lack thereof), and make a serious effort to improve their standards.
The fact that the monitors are “volunteers” is no excuse for their negligence or sustained poor performances – history is replete with examples of people volunteering for the most heinous of crimes.
To answer my own question at the beginning, I suspect that many more people have been financially ruined by propertytalk, than have been greatly financially enriched.
This, of course, is my supposition only.
What say you?
Kind Regards,
*poormastery*
What say I?
I say you are correct. Property Talk, for all its good intent, has probably caused more damage than good. And that is a shame. The Mods vetted the wrong people, silencing those of us who knew better. They encouraged the bullying of others – and for that – I will not forgive them.
exnzpat! poormastery! so glad that you haven’t lost all interest in NZ.
Apart from directly abusing the moderators and owners on PT, I don’t recall either of you adding much useful information to PT over the years.
Maybe if you were brave enough to post what you ‘knew better’ in line with the public rules of PT, you may have achieved whatever result it was that you were after.
Maybe, like Peter, you could set up you own web site to pursue your agenda – then you could make up your own rules.
Quentin
[Comment: Welcome along, Quentin. Your dismissive comment about these two former posters’ contribution should embarrass you. That’s a shallow, unworthy expression of thought from you and I’m sorry to say it demeans you as a PropertyTalk Moderator. Why don’t you make a case? – Peter]
Hello boys!
Jeez, that’s pretty harsh poormastery, but given your legendary contribution to PropertyTalk, I think you have earned the right to express strong opinions about these things. You and Xris. And exnzpat.
poormastery & exnzpat: I don’t judge PropertyTalk as harshly as you two do.
I know from public and private messages that people have appreciated the ‘whistle-blowing’ and ‘heads-up’ type warnings that several of us have posted in discussion on the website over the years for potential victims to discover. That is a ‘public good’ as far as I am concerned.
Perry’s comment:
“These Forums have proven a blessing for many, by warning folks about dodgy practices and practitioners.”
is true, it seems to me. (But boy, it’s a struggle sometimes!)
Why else would those who are the subject of such warnings work so assiduously to have the comments outlining their track records and sales techniques censored (‘ex-Sponged’) as they have done?
In real or affected outrage they screech that a gang of ‘tall poppy slashers’ (as if!) are ‘bashing the competition’ and running a ‘very clever smear campaign’ of ‘disrespect’ and ‘derision’. Oh dear.
For their courage under fire, especially in the early days, the PropertyTalk founders deserve a medal. They stood up to bullying from the vile Richmastery crew and others. That took guts. (That they crumbled at times later is sad, but understandable. Well, sort of.)
Yes, it’s beyond argument that some of the spruikers you name and others have used PropertyTalk as a platform and a hunting ground for
fresh meatum, er, ‘buyers’ of their (or their ‘good friend’s’) errr, ‘projects’ and services.In some cases they did this by constructing a profile on the website to build a sort of credibility — that some would say they exploited. (Not helped by the fact that the website relies in large measure on these very same spruikers for income through advertising on the site and ‘promotion’ of their snake oil to members.)
It’s also my own experience that an inconsistent censorship by the Moderators (Hello, Quentin?) has been applied to ‘contentious’ posters — like you guys — almost certainly under pressure from the usual crop of bully-boys, doing their ‘threats of threats’ intimidatory confidence trick.
As I think you said poormastery, appeasement doesn’t lead anywhere good with such operators.
A recent episode, in which a cartel I refer to as the United Federation of Property Spruikers including Matthew ‘I have screenshots’ Gilligan seemingly convinced the owners that they had the financial means and determination to ‘bring PropertyTalk to its knees’ through a legal case.
‘Screenshots’ Gilligan spelt out his point of view in foaming, hysterical rants (just my opinion) some targeting me by name — but strangely, except for one abusive and threatening phone call one morning, I never heard from Matthew Gilligan.
Instead, this cabal of outraged bully-boys (or ‘concerned business operators’?) focussed on the ‘weak link’ — threatening to sue the PropertyTalk forum owners for publishing ‘defamatory’, ‘unlawful’ and ‘illegal’ (cough, splutter — oh, riiiight) comments by posters.
Matthew Gilligan even ‘shared’ his ‘legal advice’ (and screenshots?) with the PT owners, he explained. How thoughtful.
It seemed to work. One of the proprietors admitted in a discussion thread called ‘Censorship’: “Why are we making these changes….because we have to – to avoid litigation.”
Truly, that’s NOT a case the spruikers would ever win, in my view, but the threat of the threat appears to have ‘psyched out’ and disheartened the owners and Moderators — no doubt perplexed by their own lack of appetite for a fight … and lack of the means to pay the cost to defend such a quixotic action. (Some of us pledged to a legal fighting fund, but it was too late.)
My view: Call their bluff.
The publicity attached to such a nonsense action by the spruikers would unquestionably highlight and amplify some of the ‘dirty laundry’ and (eminently provable) if-not-dodgy-at-least-questionable actions, connections, laughably self-aggrandising claims (‘top investor’, ‘expert’ etc) and worst: marketing statements. Get those in full public view and ‘Screenshots’ would learn the meaning of derision.
Also, once the plaintiffs had ‘engaged’ a legal action (actually filed) they could find themselves legally responsible for reimbursing the litigation costs of the defendants, and need their explicit agreement to ‘disengage’. Ooops.
All in all, a messy situation, and probably inadvisable for someone seeking to suppress public discourse and discussion as they do.
But instead of standing their ground, the proprietors of PropertyTalk have, sadly, repeatedly ‘rewarded’ that bullying, threatening behaviour. While pluckily fighting the good fight in some quarters, to my delight, they have sometimes, to my dismay, caved in … backing down when (in my view) they really needed to stand up. See: http://www.thepaepae.com/dedicated-to-my-friends-at-propertytalk/2856/
It’s no wonder they continue to attract criticism such as your comments.
And mine: http://www.thepaepae.com/the-peasants-are-revolting/3022/comment-page-1/#comment-413
It’s a hard road they tread, and they get my respect for fulfilling their charter to host discussion that some would consider ‘negative’ and letting conversations stand with obviously testy exchanges. Like this: Integrity has no price – unless it’s PropertyTalk’s?? and others.
Pretty ballsy stuff. Good on them.
Despite my occasional disappointments with some of my friends at PropertyTalk’s actions and decisions (not them. I like them) it’s their baby — their sandpit. They can and should run it as they see fit. That’s fair.
I strongly feel the world is a better place for the existence of PropertyTalk … although at times it does so smack of a missed opportunity.
Calling the bluff.
Funny, I knew I’d read Matthew ‘Screenshots’ Gilligan saying how much he enjoyed legal fights … read this, from PropertyTalk in connection with his failed bid to ‘scalp’ (bankrupt) Blue Chip supremo Mark Bryers:
Are you getting a sense of how this guy operates?
And the irony that ‘Screenshots’ Gilligan complains about “competitors selling themselves by smearing crap all over others” … while publishing comments such as these.
And see how valuable PropertyTalk can be? That’s why I support it. – P
Hi Peter,
I will accept that the propertytalk.com owners and monitors collaborated with the spruikers because they felt that they had no choice.
This plot reminds me of one of my favourite novels – La Peste (The Plague) by Albert Camus. I recommend it to you.
Although the book is superficially about a plague in Algeria, it is also at an allegorical level about French collaboration and resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II. Camus himself was an important member of the French resistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plague
“The plague comes unannounced and may strike down anyone at any time. It is arbitrary and capricious, and it leaves humans in a state of fear and uncertainty, which ends only in death. In the face of this metaphysical reality, what must be the response of individuals? Should they resign themselves to it, accept it as inevitable, and seek what solace they can as individuals, or should they join with others and fight back, even though they must live with the certainty that they cannot win? Camus’s answer is clearly the latter… Rieux argues that one would have to be a madman to submit willingly to the plague. Rather than accepting the natural order of things — the presence of sickness and death — he believes one must fight against them. He is aware of the needs of the community; he does not live for himself alone. When Tarrou points out that “[his] victories will never be lasting,” Rieux admits that he is involved in a “never ending defeat,” but this does not stop him from engaging in the struggle.”
Although Camus considers revolt to be the ideal, he is quite forgiving of the allegorical Vichy collaborators in his book. Indeed, Jean Paul Satre, Camus’ philosopher friend, barely spoke to him again after reading the book, so enraged was he by this treatment.
In my view, Camus was correct on both counts.
One should engage in the struggle and fight back rather than surrender, even in the face of overwhelming odds. Nonetheless, towards those that fail to engage in the struggle, or even join the oppressors, one should show forgiveness.
“Forgiveness is divine.”
Finally, I am willing to accept your point that propertytalk.com probably did some good work before the subsequent surrender and complete capitulation.
Appeasement is seldom the optimal policy.
Kind Regards,
*p*
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-expressed reply. – P
UPDATE: I’ve promoted your comment to a post: http://www.thepaepae.com/propertytalk-public-criticism-and-the-public-good/15170/ with some additional thoughts in reply. Thanks.
Sean Wood as MUFFIT castigating PropertyTalk — Hmmm, and vaguely threatening? (click to enlarge)
[…] An interesting discussion has started about discussion forum PropertyTalk in the comments thread of my post about Linking to sources and the Sean Wood case study. […]
Ahhh . . . Albert Camus. His addendum to Aristotle’s concept of Teleology was pithy, to say the least.
I don’t want to engage too deeply in the to and fro of the: he should’ve done, she should’ve done, they should’ve done xxxxx finger-pointing. Quentin made an undeniable point: instead of abusing the posting rules of a free forum, go start your own. I have oft said it myself: posting on the PT Forums is a privilege; not a right,.
The one point of significance that I emphasise is that you – Peter – put your name where your criticisms were. There and here. Others – I presume of lesser moral fibre – were not up to that. Then or now.
Cube,
You forget yourself. I was never disciplined nor banned. Only a few posts were ever removed. I remain, as always, a gentleman to those who are kind to me. To those who are not… well… we shall see…
The terrible incident that led to my demise at PT, and my current residence, a house for the criminally insane, was brought about entirely by property investment. While my woes are not Property Talk’s (they are not to blame); those same woes did draw thousands to their web-site and bolstered their advertising dollars; and for that I am sorry.
My doctors now allow me access to one computer and one web-site only, this one: “The Paepae,” and consider the writing of my adventure, cathartic — a healing, if you will.
My tale is not yet done, nor my dragons slain. There is much to do… “Come Lincoln, come!”
This makes me chuckle. Good answer. And slightly creepy… – P
Thanks for your comment, and being willing to engage in a conversation, Perry. You’ve been on my mind today. I like and respect you, as I hope you know.
I think I get what you’re saying about ‘abusing the rules’ … but faced with what some see as, let’s call it ‘somewhat inconsistent’ application of said rules, and a perception of bias (in the eye of the beholder, I grant you) what is an intelligent being to do?
Grin and bear it? Ignore the smart-arse slap-down comments some Moderators indulge in? Names withheld to protect the guilty. (Not you, Perry, in my experience.)
It’s not so much about abusing the ‘rules’ of the forum, in my view. Actually, Quentin’s point wasn’t ‘abuse of the rules’… but rather “directly abusing the moderators and owners on PT”
I think some of that so-called ‘abuse’ of the Mods and owners stems from frustration with what was perceived by some of us as double-talk and dodgy, inconsistent moderation decisions — some of them seemingly made under bully-boy pressure (what poormastery labelled reluctant ‘collaboration’, then ‘capitulation’) … and, here’s the kicker: the lack of willingness to ADMIT to that state of affairs.
Donna’s comment in March 2009 ‘… we are making these [censorship] changes … to avoid litigation’ was a watershed. Until then, this obvious truth had, it seems to me, been overtly denied like a shameful family secret.
It’s as if the ‘victim’ of the bullying experienced the shame. Terrible.
I PUBLISH ALL THREATS I RECEIVE — as a POLICY. I suggest PropertyTalk consider adopting a similar approach.
Now, I’ve said before, it’s gutsy of the PT owners and Mods to declare they will abide by a code of published rules … but that statement creates an expectation.
Silly, transparently false justifications for censorship of discussion on the forum, and whacky interpretations of ‘the rules’ have been deployed — in my own direct experience — e.g. inconsistently cutting ‘external links’, quick, reflexive editing of posts by ‘certain posters’ but leaving rule-breaching abuse of those ‘certain posters’ in place as some sort of appeasement or (cringe) attempt at ‘balance’.
YOU, Perry, know more than most, the hoops and hurdles and bear traps my own comments at PropertyTalk have endured (those that survived). Then quietly, whole threads were ‘removed for review’, never to be seen again — the cyber equivalent of the ‘disappeared’s.
As the very reasonable poster Xav said:
Other posters are of the same view, it seems.
Nobody’s perfect, right? But I have to say, at times communication from the Mods, if it is issued, can be brusque to the point of rudeness.
That sort of treatment is a grave insult to someone of poormastery, xris, exnxpat and orion’s obvious intellect. (Me? I believe in relationships, and I’m optimistic that I can ‘persuade’ people to my side — viz: HermanZ’s coming around.)
Treating those ‘living treasures’ like that, ‘sacrificing your friends for the sake of your enemies’, as I have said before… that squandered their obvious talent (IMO), and drove them away from PT. I don’t expect you to agree with me about all this, but let’s discuss it, if you’re willing.
Best wishes, Peter
PS: Questioning a poster’s ‘moral fibre’ because they choose to retain their anonymity in the face of a demonstrable record of bullying and legal threats seems strange of you Perry. (You surprised me with that comment, mate.)
Things aren’t that simple, as Leonard Cohen sang. And what about the dishonest sockpuppets like MUFFIT and Slapper — people who have openly, falsely denied who they are? Or halfempty? How do you rate their moral fibre?
How’s it go?
Wisdom is a harsh teacher for she gives
the experience first – the lesson later.
The PT Rules require that posters making
certain accusations, well, put up or shut
up. Unlike antipathetic-to-government-
type whistle-blowers, PT is not protected
by any benign legislation.
With any luck, the accusatory, even the
libellous poster, can be joined as a de-
fendant and enjoy paying half the costs.
To get close to achieving that means
their true identity needs to be known.
Ponder this:
Most news media control their content.
No one gets to publish a letter to the
Editor, without it first having gone
through their system. (Before the fact)
Internet media like a Forum differs.
An assessment of the content happens
after the fact.
(Do you preview ab initio posters
on this blog, Peter, before deciding to
allow them the freedom/discretion of
instant display of their posts?)
In doing any sort or real or perceived
public service, the PT Forums may well
act as the only generally and readily
available e-media to alert or warn any
prospective PIs of the traps. (Names
withheld to protect the guilty – nudge,
wink.)
Many such spruikeneurs may be in the
same bind as PT. They’d love to kill it
to get rid of the watchdog role that it
plays, but they need it to harvest the
terminally gullible. At times, I do won-
der if the reverse doesn’t apply, too,
in that PT needs their support to stay
on the cyber waves to alert folks to
those very supporters.
What a dilemma. Tis surely a razor
edge that PT treads.
The Mods do their best. Yes, there are
Rules. If they seem to – at times – be
inconsistently applied, those aggrieved
would do well to remember the aphorism
I mentioned earlier:
Rules are for the guidance of the Wise
And the obeisance of Fools.
The Mods exercise their discretion in
the best way they can. Another cliché:
we know we can’t please all of them,
all of the time. Whether this extensive
and copious blog of yours is a conse-
quence of that, I know not.
Certain other bleeding hearts should
follow your example, if so. You have
blazed a trail for them. I wont be hold-
ing my breath.
Thanks Perry. I’ll reply more fully a bit later … I’ve got a couple of stories to share …
I just hope you mean “extensive and copious blog of yours” in a positive way!
It’s tough to take ‘bleeding heart’ as a compliment, however. (I am a ‘sickly white liberal’, as I have said before. Oh, and an ‘Apple fanboy’. Hmpf! Labels)
In the meantime, I don’t know if you’ve seen this cartoon, which gives me a (rueful) laugh…
Is that what PropertyTalk is helping the spruikers to do, Perry? Is that what you meant by this…?:
It makes me sad to read that, Perry. – P
Poormastery would like to thank the PT monitors for their honest feedback – it was rather refreshing.
In essence, poormastery thinks that cube and Perry are excellent ambassadors for the propertytalk.com brand, because they articulate with great clarity and precision the mission, mentality, culture and business model the site utilises.
Any business arguably has a number of stakeholders who may have different or even conflicting interests. It needs to balance and manage these relationships if it is to be successful.
Stakeholders such as advertisers and users of an internet site can form a symbiotic relationship, insofar as their relationship can be mutually beneficial for both sets of participants in the relationship. Users provide advertisers with customers; with no advertisers there may be no revenue and thus no business for the user to utilise.
Perry is particularly interesting in this respect. He claims that some of PT’s advertisers need PT “to harvest the terminally gullible”. Okay. But surely this could be harmful to the users of the site? What do the users, then, get out of PT – given the arguably unappetizing prospect of being harvested by spruikers?
Cube is clear on this point. The users could leave and “set up their own web site…” if they don’t like what they are already given. This is somewhat tautological – users simply get what they are given. Take it or leave it.
In business, you seldom receive such frank assessments about how relatively important or unimportant the different stakeholders are.
To be sure, to be economically viable, propertytalk.com needs to make a profit. The business model has presumably allowed and indeed enabled this to happen, such that the site continues to be a going concern (perhaps against my expectations).
Nonetheless, despite this small success of continued solvency, poormastery doesn’t believe that propertytalk has stumbled across a “winning formula” in terms of its weighting of stakeholder interests.
Independence, once lost, won’t easily be regained? When you alienate and atagonise your user base enough so that they leave, your advertisers might also leave?
As such, poormastery can’t help thinking that PT missed a trick.
Kind Rgds,
*p*
@ poormastery: Thanks for your comments.
So you, too, were struck by Perry’s language…
I’m sure Perry is being realistic (but maybe suffering some sense of alienation? Perry?)
I find this development a little striking …
http://www.thepaepae.com/propertytalk-public-criticism-and-the-public-good/15170/comment-page-1/#comment-7919
Property Investment in New Zealand as a viable endeavor ended in early 2007. By not intervening, and hampering the bad ship, “Spruiker-Endeavor,” PT helped fuel a fire that continued the upward march of home values. Those values are now shrunk – by what percent – nobody knows. But the slide will continue, as value, in great whopping chunks is continually torn from the market-place and tossed asunder. Everybody losses – everybody!
Peter, PT missed a trick all right, and I’m not sure you see it. The world moves – purpose and need change on a daily basis. Property Investment is now a thing of the past.
PT will fail because they found collusion with thieves to be more acceptable than collusion with people like you. Thieves do not demand ownership, only “that they get what they want.” You, on the other hand, would have demanded that PT be “better,” and made it your own – and that’s a harder thing to give.
PT’s reward for their folly is that they get to remain PT.
But you – well, you’ve reinvented yourself; and that’s something to be proud of — because you did it on your own.
“collusion with thieves to be more acceptable than collusion with people like you”
Jeez .. that’s a bit SHARP!!
No not really, not when you consider the impact the spruiker’s have had on the market-place. I believe their behavior constitutes a “taking.” And we have all felt the effect of their behavior, whether we realize it or not.
If you attempt to describe the word “spruiker” based on “spruiker exploits” then a handy synonym, I think, would be: thief, burglar, sleight-of-hand, criminal, intruder, violator, sneak, etc…
Spruiker may be a new word – but it has a familiar origin and fits its family of synonyms well.
Peter, you attempted to discourage spruiker behavior on PT.
Poormastery attempted to discourage spruiker behavior on PT.
I attempted to discourage spruiker behavior on PT.
We are the guys wearing the White-Hats in this cowboy movie — the honest few in a den of vipers — vilified and made outcast by an ignorant few. Hat in hand, we ride off into the sunset spinning tales of our exploits about the well-read campfires of the internet prairie. We tried… and if that is the least that is said of us, then let be said loudly and with pride!
@exnzpat: We are the guys wearing the White-Hats in this cowboy movie —
{Snort!!} How romantic! But I’m not an outcast. I’m still ‘a valued member of the PropertyTalk community’.
But your image reminds me of one of the times when a PT thread I was commenting in was ‘purged’ …
(Click to enlarge)
Lifting various paragraphs out and dwelling
upon them, when devoid of the overall context,
is not edifying, nor helpful. Neither is spec-
ulation on revenue versus expenses.
It is not possible to make omelettes without
breaking eggs. But if the eggs were free . . .
Perhaps a subscription model is implied? PT
would doubtless look somewhat different, in
that case.
I must also make mention of something I perhaps
should’ve done so, earlier. Any commentary
I make hereabouts is my PoV. It is not, nor
should not, be construed to be the policy or
views of the PT Moderators, or the site’s
owners. (No, I was not asked – I volunteered
that, just in case of mis-perception). Cube
is likely to be of the same mind.
Perry, I always took it that you’re speaking for yourself — not PropertyTalk. (No harm in saying it though.)
Ironically, that’s a message I have failed to communicate to those sockpuppets and spruikers who seem to want to see my own expression of my personal POV (rather than my firm’s) on PT as ‘competitor bashing/smearing/smiting’ etc (A slender little cavil, I admit.)
I don’t think you are quoted out of context above Perry … your original missive is right there.
As for anybody’s ‘profitability’ or otherwise … well, hmmm, I don’t speculate on that but I wouldn’t deny someone else the latitude to discuss it as ‘unhelpful’ … why would you?
I despise grave-dancing of the sort the Richmastery electrician indulged in on his website — cock-a-doodle-doing at the financial demise of his ‘enemies’. Kick me if you EVER see me do that. Kick me hard.
A subscription model is being tried for the NY Times…. and a friend told me yesterday his NBR online subscription is money well-spent.
Whatever, the terrible, gut-wrenching reliance on advertising by spruikers and the compromises this entails (or appears to) combined with a lack of real commitment to ballsy journalistic values puts PT in the cross hairs for intimidatory tactics. (Just an opinion — I could be wrong.)
When the PT owners/Mods disappoint the ‘people’ with back-downs and deploying a ‘swiss cheese’ appeasement-defence — double-mindedly chopping out bits of discussions or ex-Sponging whole threads, well, confidence can easily be lost.
– Peter
It’s quoted out of context in the sense that it falls
victim to what I’ll call “sermon based on a syllable”
sophistry.
If you want to re-label speculation as latitude, then
that’s your call.
When the hero label is an appellation self-ascribed
by the one[s] claiming to be the heroes, it reminds me
(to a degree) of a soliloquy from the one of the Dramatis
Personae in some arcane pathos play at a Greek amphitheatre.
re the ‘hero label‘ appellation … oh no Perry, quite right, I didn’t take my friend’s ‘we are the White Hats’ suggestion terribly seriously. It made me {snort}.
I quoted a line from my hero Leonard Cohen recently w.r.t. another matter recently:
The dealer wants you thinking
That it’s only black or white
Thank God it’s not that simple
In my secret life.
Things and people are often more complex than we might ‘fink’.
But I think I know what exnzpat means. It has felt like a battle at times. We have been standing up for certain values — and the ‘black hats’ (I don’t call them thieves) having more to lose (and fewer scruples?) sometimes, too often, have appeared to be ascendant at PropertyTalk.
As ghastly and unflattering as poormastery’s image of Nazi collaborators is, truly, sometimes it fits. (Sorry.)
Hey Perry, I think we can all agree the image “harvesting the terminally gullible” in connection with PropertyTalk and spruikers was … unfortunate. You did use it. Do you take it back?
– Peter
No. If ‘newbies’ do their homework on PT,
they should be well informed. If not, it’s
likely they’ll remain gullible. I’ve lost
count of the number of threads which start
out: “Tell me about . . . “ There’s lots
of help available, but horses can only be
lead to water . . .
Oh, while I did not think you would misplace
my comments as being in any way ‘official,’
I provided that caveat for the benefit of
others who have not had the pleasure of the
one-on-one personal interaction that you and
I have enjoyed, in happier times.
I would have dinner with you tomorrow, or when it suited you, Perry, if you were in town.
I found you good company. As far as I am concerned, you and I are still in ‘happier times’. Aren’t we?
I’d also have another kebab with Quentin, or Japanese meal with Donna & Marc. Happily.
There are many things we could talk about. – P
It was my times which were happier,
back then. But I seem to be getting
another turn.
Oh, sorry mate. Of course.
You know I wish you every good thing and all the best with your new ‘turn’. Exciting!
– P
Just to clarify a couple of things.
Neither exnzpat or poormastery were banned by PT.
In fact, I believe that exnzpat left quietly leaving an unfinished tale of renovations, and is welcome to return and post within the rules any time his overseers let him have access to more than one website at a time (what are you going to do – tie them together and escape out of the window?).
After publicly abusing the owners and moderators of PT and being put on the watchlist, poormastery requested that all record of his existence be removed from PT and that his registration be revoked. This request was denied, but he was put on the banned list to ensure that he didn’t inadvertently, in a moment of weakness, return to the site for which he predicted complete financial failure in 2008.
In having a quick review of exnzpat’s and poormastery’s PT posts, they did indeed conduct a concerted campaign against seemingly anyone who offered an education service in the line of property investment – I couldn’t find, and cannot recall, either of them recommending the services of anyone in this field.
Maybe my aging memory is tricking me, or is the PI education industry so wild-west that there are no honest operators out there worthy of their anonymous recommendation?
“Maybe my aging memory is tricking me, or is the PI education industry so wild-west that there are no honest operators out there worthy of their anonymous recommendation?”
Yee haw, pardner!
I guess it depends how you define “PI education industry”, as we have discussed on the forum.
In my view (and not just mine) there has been a brigade of spruikers posing as “educators” who have milked the public with their bait-and-switch, I’m-your-mentor-and-look-this-(exciting, exclusive etc)-deal-you-can-make-easy-profits-like-maybe-even-1000% … -type spiel.
Those who pointed this out copped criticism and harassment. I include you Quentin … didn’t you post the original ‘$1000 down’ Sponge Bay marketing email from Dean Letfus which I referred to in the informative – but now ex-Sponged – discussion thread?
That’s where I first met exnzpat, who, as I recall, some of the Moderators brutalised (I exaggerate) and, worse, allowed other rule-breaking pit-bulls to savage while looking the other way …
As for poormastery, from my point of view his story doesn’t start with your opening episode (‘After publicly abusing the owners and moderators…’) It starts with how you as Moderators responded to the pressure brought to bear on the site by Richmastery (as major advertisers) to silence public criticism (such as poormastery’s) of their um, ‘operation’.
But it wasn’t JUST rebels like us…
Paul Flood started the (now ex-Sponged) ‘Richmastery’ thread with its (at last count, before it was removed without announcement to the PT community) 4,800 replies and 380,000 views …
Of course, Richmastery’s bluster was that the discussion thread on PropertyTalk “contains many defamatory and untrue statements”. Naturally, they said that, eh Quentin?
And if you want to talk about ‘concerted campaigns’ you should perhaps discuss the constant and terrible pressure Richmastery and its sumpremo put on PropertyTalk FOR YEARS to remove that heavily-censored thread.
Which, OMG, you did — you re-wrote that little bit of history with the comment about ‘withdrawn after it got too heated’ … what was ‘heated’ about the liquidators report?
The ‘concerted campaign’ of which you speak was no such thing, or better put: more a product of a fevered imagination/paradigm. Contribution to discussion on a particular topic on a discussion forum isn’t a ‘campaign’… We all pay attention to themes.
It’s human nature, I think, to respond to attempts to criticise you and shut you up with offence. Admit it: you guys mishandled these dissenting living treasures whose contribution was part of the ‘magic’ of PropertyTalk before you lost your nerve … not that I’m not sympathetic to your plight. I am.
Perhaps unlike some of my friends, I see a strong public good/community service role — a future — for PropertyTalk. I want it to be better and to have the FREEDOM to live up to the ‘free and independent’ tagline. That’s why I care. – Peter
Cube,
My main prediction was that spruikers such as Richmastery would fail. They did.
Poormastery thought that PT’s spruiking advertisers going bust en masse would also bring down PT.
Of course, my prediction of PT.com financially failing has to date proved incorrect.
Perhaps this is because not all the spruikers have gone bust.
Advertising revenue from the “15 Million Dollars in Debt Man” continues to flow into PT’s coffers.
Congratulations to PT!
Rgds,
*p*
Cube,
I have no doubt that my return to PT would be welcome. My posts always drew an audience. But that audience is nothing more than channeled-data that are used to garner advertising dollars. I have no intention of helping PT contribute to the further destitution of my fellow Countrymen.
But, even if I could, why would I return? Peter has the final chapter here – and more!
Or, if you care, go buy the book, visit Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exnzpat-rental-Chronicles-Exnzpat-ebook/dp/B004QOATCU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300977839&sr=8-1
Even incarcerated, I have moved on. Property Talk is still Property Talk. You have your wish. And with my absence, your Spriukers, I’m sure, are trolling about the forum like foxes in a henhouse, unchecked and unchallenged: meat-for-the-picking!
@ exnzpat: Woo hoo! CONGRATULATIONS!!
How cool that you’ve put your story out as a BOOK! That’s great. Good work. – Peter
Quentin and Perry:
Just a point: For all its challenges and the hectoring it gets from all sides (‘meat in the sandwich’) I still actually regard PropertyTalk as a SUCCESS and a valuable thing.
If it was rubbish we wouldn’t care … and we obviously do. – Peter
Next question: What can I do to help?
Get a ticket, go to one of these events
and report on how it goes. That would be
direct, first-hand experience. It would
beat criticism from the stand, any day.
(Going incognito will be a challenge)
Too much of the criticism on the PT
forums is not based on hands-on, been-
there-tried-that, didn’t like it, here’s
the report basis.
Just boos & hisses from the cheap seats
when the team lets the other side score.
Um, Perry? Was this:
Get a ticket, go to one of these events
and report on how it goes. That would be
direct, first-hand experience. It would
beat criticism from the stand, any day.
(Going incognito will be a challenge)
…meant as an answer to my question: ‘What can I do to help?’ …
Well, let me tell you of a memorable time I did just that — attending a Richmastery ‘seminar’ (in my own name), I ended up finding one-third of the course material was reproduced from my own book without a whisker of acknowledgement (and most of the rest was from an article I wrote for a magazine and a book by another journalist, it turned out). I had the novel ‘direct experience’ of being pulled out of the seminar and hustled out of the building at ‘Phil Jones’s instructions’ …
… then later received a bush lawyer version of a ‘trespass notice’ (cheapskate) sent by courier to my office and home. Then followed an unpleasant and protracted ‘Twilight Zone’-esque exchange of correspondence (some of it public) and a lawsuit when Jones’s reaction was to schizophrenically admit copying but deny copyright infringement, before finally, having exhausted even his abundant repertoire of bullying, smearing and abusing, admitting what was obvious from the first day.
I don’t recount any of that tale in anger. I did what was necessary, for myself and my fellow authors, faced with a plagiarist and a poacher. http://www.empowereducation.com/richmastery-copyright.bz
I also went to an evening with Sean Wood’s erstwhile partner in the ‘Property Tutors’ real estate sales business, Don Ha … and shared my experience of that on PT …
http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22210
I’ve been to a couple of seminars (run by APIA) where Dean Letfus has worked his rapport-building skills, but managed to avoid signing up for Fijian sections, Sponge Bay plots to ‘flick’ or Perriam Cove sections. I posted some of my impressions of an evening with Dean Letfus on PropertyTalk but I believe they’ve been ‘withdrawn for review’ along with the rest of the Sponge Bay thread and the Perriam Cove thread …. along with my notes of my recollections of a looong face-to-face meeting with Matthew Gilligan at a Property Expo (well, in the cafeteria actually) following my attendance at a brief ‘legal structures’ workshop with him and his beautiful assistant.
http://www.thepaepae.com/wp-uploads/2010/04/Andrew_King-Sponge_Bay.pdf
I also remember briefly commenting (positively) about a Kerry Christian seminar I attended — the best thing being that he told us all UP FRONT that the agenda of the seminar was for him to convince us to ‘invest’ in one of his subdivisions. I liked that frankness, and told him so, and anyone who read my post on PT … I don’t know where that is on PT.
There was no way in the world I was going to go to the Geekversity or Property Guru’s [sic] events, nor anything to do with Steve Goodey, whose track record — like Sean Wood’s — speaks for itself, as far as I’m concerned. No thanks. Not interested. I’ve had their clients sharing their experiences — directly with me — being sold property by their ‘coach’. In some cases with anguish. http://www.thepaepae.com/steven-goodey-spruiker/4817/
So, Perry, what is it you feel I should try to ‘report’ from direct first hand experience? – P
Update: Oh yes, I also attended a Kieran Trass seminar (not the one with the costumes) and have had several lunches and coffees with him over the years … but nothing to ‘write home’ about. I don’t like to criticise him.
Update 2: Just remembered I attended an early ‘Investors Forum’ seminar and spoke to the head honcho Dan McEwan about how that all worked — I remember writing on ProperyTalk that at least McEwan gave me a straight answer to a straight question about receiving kickbacks from the ‘recommended professionals’ his seminars promoted.
I also went through the initial free interview (in good faith) with the ‘NZ Invest’ guys, before telling them fairly quickly into it and very clearly that the heavily negative-geared ‘investment’ scheme they promoted was not for me … they still followed me up for months.
My reply was made without checking
through PT. In what you describe,
you stand in a small group of those
reporting first-hand experience.
T’others just proffer criticism of
a second-hand or speculative or
hearsay nature, mostly, as far as
I can tell.
BTW, did you answer my earlier
question about newbies here being
subject to a preview-before-their-
fist-post-appears? From reading
your reply to Anna, maybe not.
Perry, you commented
Do I moderate thePaepae.com? Yup, I do, but hardly. We’ve discussed the consciousness-raising effect of that experience, you and I, and I wrote a wee treatise Some thoughts about comment moderation and answered a couple of sockpuppets’ questions about it here and here and posted about that here on PT: Deception leaves clues
WordPress (which is the underlying software for this blog) has a setting which, when checked, requires that a commenter has to have a prior ‘approved’ comment before their comments will show up automatically. That’s why yours and other posters’ appear immediately. That’s been set for thePaepae.com …. and there’s also a little box into which I can enter key words or email addresses/IP addresses etc which will trigger the comment going to a moderation queue. I think there’s also a setting that directs comments to that queue if they contain more than a certain number of links.
As I have declared, occasionally I don’t approve comments if, say, I regard them as empty abuse, or deceitful nonsense … ‘Orbital’, for instance, comes to mind … I also snip spam, threats, and allegations of criminal behaviour out of comments.
Sometimes, as those examples above show, I’ll reproduce the body of the prospective comment and discuss it — so one way or another, it still gets on the site. (Same with that ‘Don Smith’ stuff from Steve Goodey’s site.) Have a breeze through the Shaun Stenning refund thread and you’ll see my comments in green.
I’m not sure where your (repeated) question is heading … ? Let’s discuss …
“Too much of the criticism on the PT
forums is not based on hands-on, been-
there-tried-that, didn’t like it, here’s
the report basis.
Just boos & hisses from the cheap seats
when the team lets the other side score.”
Aside from the derogatory implication of some of his language choices, I do rather agree with Perry’s comment. I would say I am a semi-regular reader of PT, although I choose not to contribute to the forums.
The anti-spruiker threads are by far the highest in entertainment value, but aside from that I personally do not believe they add much to the forums. How many times do you need to explain that certain people are vile and to be avoided? I have met a number of these less-than-pleasant people in person and I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of their business practices are less than ethical. Nor are they people I would choose to spend time with socially. I have also been on the receiving end of some of their malice, as have a number of close friends. I do not, however, feel the need to angrily pursue them across the internet.
The Richmastery thread was a massive beast, filled with personal attacks and personal opinions that could probably have been vented elsewhere. When I first began reading the forums a number of years ago I was truly surprised at the LACK of moderation. What surprised me even more was how many of the moderators themselves also engaged in these “boos & hisses from the cheap seats”, which to me was fairly appalling. Moderators should be unbiased and not adding fuel to the fire, but sadly that is not what I witnessed. I have to admit that I stopped looking at the forums for a decent period of time as I felt it provided a place for angry people to rant and hiss and spit rather than provide useful information on property investment. For me personally, the lack of moderation removed some of the credibility from PT. I think that a number of contributors may have felt similarly, as there seemed a decline in the number of people who were willing to contribute valuable information to the forums.
It seems that in more recent times the moderators have begun to tidy up a lot of the threads (which I believe should have happened a while ago) yet it seems sad that this was done under pressure of legal action from the spruikers, if what I have read is to be believed. I can understand why PT would bow to legal pressure from spruikers; I can’t say if I would do the same, but I can understand it. Sometimes the stress simply isn’t worth it, especially depending on what’s happening in your own life at the time.
I think PT is yet to find the right recipe for moderation, but I think they’re heading in a more positive direction. It’s just a shame that it appears to be at the whim of the spruikers threatening legal action rather than anything else. Whether that is the reality of the situation I really don’t know.
I think the contributors to the forums, however, need to follow suit. Make your statement, back it up, leave out the personal attacks which add nothing. Peter, for example, does a wonderful job of this, and in time I think more people will begin to wisen up. If nothing else, it means PT is more able to defend its position when some nasty little people decide to threaten them with defamation.
PT seems to be essentially changing the culture of the site, and naturally this will get a few people’s backs up. Will it be better or worse for it? I think the former, but time will tell.
Gosh, Anna, thanks for your very reasonable and reasoned post. What a pleasure to read it. Welcome!
In terms of the ‘value-add’ of what I am now thinking of as the direct experience/’consumer watchdog’ aspects of some of my own ‘umble contribution to PT, see my reply to Perry above…
http://www.thepaepae.com/linking-to-sources-vital-for-credibility-sean-wood/15068/comment-page-1/#comment-8026
Thanks too for your kind words. – P
Anna asks:
“How many times do you need to explain that certain people are vile and to be avoided?”
Now – not often. Then?
With due respect, I suspect that your post is somewhat revisionist.
Do you remember the madness of the crowds in the mid noughties? Or do you choose to forget it?
Your hairdresser would discuss her buy-to-let apartments. Your taxi driver would “own” multiple properties. It was an extended “shoeshine boy” period in time.
None of it makes sense now, looking back rationally. Nonetheless, some people saw it at the time. Some people even called it.
I was in NZ in February this year, and I bought a few properties. I viewed (passed in) mortgagee auction after (passed in) mortgagee auction.
Some believed the spruikers alright…
Rgds,
*p*
poormastery: you wrote: Do you remember the madness of the crowds in the mid noughties?
Yes, it was a hysterical time. I remember the message of Olly Newland’s book ‘The Day the Bubble Bursts’ was met with resistance by many … as the Herald cartoonist Guy Body picked …
The same went for our book ‘How to Survive and Prosper in a Falling Property Market’. (Still, we tried.)
The spruikers, of course, made predictions of a very different ilk to separate people from their money …
– Peter
Hi Poormastery,
Yes people believed the spruikers, I am not denying that. People jumped on the property bandwagon under the impression they were making their fortune and later found themselves in a financially dismal situation. I’m not trying to make light of that.
The point I was attempting to make (obviously badly) was in relation to PT. I think it is necessary to warn people about spruikers. However I think that the number of posts and the content of posts in relation to those warnings can become excessive, and has become excessive in the past. I do think some of the warning threads/posts were removed hastily by PT under legal pressures which, in my opinion, is a real shame. I definitely think the information should be there for people to read.
Spruikers will always make money from people. I personally don’t believe the onus is on PT to save every person from every possible scenario in which they could potentially be taken advantage of. People are individuals and will always make their own decisions, regardless of what information is available to them.
I also don’t believe PT should censor every thread that concerns spruikers, but they certainly need to keep them tidy enough to be able to easily defend any defamation claims. It’s about keeping the information there, but keeping it within the guidelines. Defamation is notoriously difficult to prove, but it’s still a process that can cause a significant amount of stress, time, and money for the person(s) being sued. PT need to have peace of mind that, if they are sued, the claim has no chance of success.
Regrettably, it is not the cogency of the accusations,
but the depth of the accusers pockets that decides,
most times.
We won! (but we’re bankrupt and destitute) has a hollow,
galling and Pyrrhic ring to it.
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.” ~ Ambrose Redmoon
I think you would find most of the accusations would never progress to be anything more than that. It hasn’t taken these people long to figure out that sending a threatening letter generally achieves the results they desire.
I think you would also find that their pockets aren’t nearly as deep as they would have you believe.
Bully tactics are mostly as effective as you allow them to be.
Experience indicates otherwise, AFAIK.
Several hundred dollars can be quickly
spent on a single legal letter of reply.
And it gets more expensive as the law
sharks argue back and forth. Peter has
referred to this, earlier.
Although not an ideal example here’s
more on the subject,, also referenced
by Peter, earlier on.
Fingers crossed the xhtml codes work!
http://www.thepaepae.com/linking-to-sources-vital-for-credibility-sean-wood/15068/comment-page-1/#comment-8026
http://www.empowereducation.com/richmastery-copyright.bz
No, I disagree Perry (I don’t get to say that very often!) Anna’s right.
My copyright lawsuit experience not withstanding, I agree with her that most threats are HOLLOW. For reasons alluded to in this post http://www.thepaepae.com/legal-action/2995/ …
… it’s very risky for a dodgy character to ACTUALLY take legal action.
I quoted Matthew Gilligan saying sort of the same thing on PropertyTalk earlier in this very comment thread.
In my case, my lawyers were dying to cross examine Phil Jones on his hysterically funny affidavits … if they ever got the chance..
Choose your target
It intrigues me, still, that all during the long campaign of hateful pressure on the owners of PropertyTalk — sometimes over my contribution to the forum, I am given to understand — all through that time of ‘threat’ to PT, the bully boys and their acolytes never contacted/threatened me directly. (Not that I wished for it.)
They focussed their ‘heat’ on PT… and. no doubt libelled and slandered me in private, spinning a bullshit line about how I was ‘running a personal and commercial vendetta’, blah blah blah — I know this because this smear would be regurgitated to me by one or two of the Mods now and then.
Oh, except for one abusive threatening phone call from Matthew Gilligan over his concerns about me ‘reviving’ (?) the Sponge Bay thread … and that was before it got er, more ‘interesting’.
About the same time, if I recall, I also had a call from Steve Goodey letting me know someone might be sending me an email fraudulently claiming to be from him. He told me fake Matthew Gilligan emails were floating around too. Steve Goodey said if he ever wanted to email me he would call me first. [??]
But that wasn’t a threat. We had a perfectly civil conversation. Unlike Matthew Gilligan’s phone call … which I ended while he was in mid-tirade.
Anyway, the point is, that ‘silence’ toward me while attempting to ‘crush’ PT could be for a number of reasons. I can only speculate. I’ve mentioned The Marshmallow theory which aligns with Anna’s “Bully tactics are mostly as effective as you allow them to be” wisdom.
How you respond
Perry, you talked about the costs of responding to lawyers’ letters … well, I guess that depends HOW one responds to such ‘threats of legal threats’.
A bit more direct experience … I remember an episode not connected to PT in 2003. One of my authors, Olly Newland, wrote a column analysing a proportionate title commercial property syndicate being hyperbolically promoted by the Richmastery spruikers — “This is your chance to invest in a commercial property hand-picked by Phil & Dave, ‘massive upside’ … invest with us… etc”.
Olly’s column was (as they still are today) published on the Empower Education website — making me the ‘publisher’ in the same way as PropertyTalk. His (characteristically) straight-talking article was titled something like “20 reasons why you SHOULDN’T invest in this type of commercial syndicate” and used their deal as an example of traps and pitfalls to look out for.
After a series of blood-curdling screams from RM HQ (apparently) and some frantic efforts in which Phil & Dave tried to ‘answer’ Olly’s genuine criticisms, we published a follow-up column with an additional 20 reasons why that particular syndication on offer was ‘questionable’, the disclosures inadequate, etc … and their promotion of it even more so.
It fell apart. Olly was RIGHT. In the end, the two bothered bovver boys had to publish a ‘Participation Disclosure Document’ (PDF 147K) which basically unpicked and disclaimed their hyperbolic marketing bullshit including a statement, probably demanded by Bob Jones (whose name they had used in an ad! Tisk), which said:
Later, we received a threatening letter from Phil & Dave’s lawyers du jour Morgan Coakle demanding we immediately remove Olly’s column from the Empower Education website … as it [allegedly] ‘defamed’ their clients and held them up to ridicule and encouraged readers to see them as shallow, loathsome pieces of fluff. (OK, I made that last bit up, but it was something like ‘exposed them as worthy of derision as unusually incompetent’ … or something like that.)
We chuckled, good-naturedly, at that, and this is what I sent back in its very cheap entirety:
We didn’t hear another thing. (If I had, it would have been up on my website before very long.)
Now, that’s not too unusual with lawyers letters, as Anna pointed out.
[Sorry about the length of my reply!] – P
I’m sure it was mentioned elsewhere that some PT users were happy to contribute to a fund for legal proceedings.
Are there really no lawyers active in PT who would help out? Did you ask? You must have a valuable network with PT, why not use it?
I understand it’s stressful, and I understand it’s time consuming. If it’s purely about money I really do become less sympathetic.
I personally like to stand my ground. I’m with Peter on this, I would be calling their bluff. (I would link to his comment but I’m not particularly tech-savvy!)
I should probably have pressed refresh before posting…Peter’s reply above says it all really!
Hey that happens to me too!
Please don’t let my comments (whether you agree or disagree) inhibit your posting — it’s good to have a dialogue going …
regards, – P
Quite possibly so. I reiterate:
A ‘battle’ in which the victor is broke,
or dis-stressed beyond reasonable measure
is a Pyrrhic victory.
My role is that of a Moderator on PT.
I have no financial interest or risk
involved. So, like others, it could be
easy for me to pontificate in censorious
fashion, in varying degrees, about just
what someone else should do / have done.
After the fact, too.
An aside . . .
Also, I am not used to a non-linear format,
so I seem to have re-asked a question that
you had already answered. Sorry.
Really, Perry, is that where you get to?
So … those of us earnestly wanting to encourage PT to live up to its vision and potential (and the ‘independent’ tagline) are, according to you, “pontificating” and being “censorious”?
OK, let’s talk about that …
From my point of view, it’s PropertyTalk’s censorship in the latest instance of ‘Sharpie’ which sparked this round of discussion. That’s what drew my attention.
I acknowledge you have left my own comments/evidence unmolested. But even so, cube quickly chimed in implying I was being somehow dishonest … (Quentin ‘buying the smear, then selling it’, I call that. Or appeasement?)
From what I observed of Sharpie’s ‘moderation’ this week, it was redolent of the machinations inflicted on other posters trying to contribute to the forum.
viz. The treatment meted out to my online friends poormastery and exnzpat and xris, for instance — forum members about whom the owners and Mods appeared to form a poor opinion because the bullying spruikers complained so much about their searing truth-telling (and caustic, endearing wit).
As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), the spruikers waged a ‘campaign’ of constantly harassing the Mods about ‘certain posters’ and threatening the forum owners with taking their advertising money elsewhere (apparently) … and threats of expensive ‘legal threats’ a la statements like: ‘My lawyer is getting excited’ or ‘I have screenshots’ or ‘illegal, unlawful comments‘. Please.
Watching how Sharpie has been treated this week was striking — I saw his posts appear and disappear, as noted here … and it brought home to me how gun-shy our once-proud (free and independent) forum has become.
The discourtesy directed at Sharpie, the manner in which his/her posts were sliced and diced — the needless censorship of statements of uncontentious fact (e.g. Sean Wood’s ownership of Blue Peak and his long term role with the disgraced/ful Richmastery) is exactly what has damaged the forum and diluted its confidence and effectiveness, in my view. (I’m not the only one saying this, am I?)
Finally, please let me question, as Anna did, your conviction that the spruikers who seek to dominate PT have lots of money and a willingness to spend it to bring PT to its knees … that PT’s defeat by them, if they so wished, is assured … and your conceit (noun: form an idea, imagine, conceive) that a victory against them at a financial cost would be Pyrrhic. Perry, that’s just not true.
As I have said repeatedly over the years to you and the PT owners, some things are just worth fighting for. In the 2009 thread Integrity has no price… I said it this way:
[…] Auckland based property developer/investor Sean Wood got fined $30,000 in June 2008 for unconsented building works. His company City Link Properties was […]
Yes, Peter. Too many, too often, will opine what
they would’ve done this, that or t’other thing in
such-and-such a situation, that someone else is/
was in. And it matters not how well intended. Walk
a league or two in the other’s shoes, first.
Mea culpa.
Each to their own view / opinion. It is neither
my wish nor desire to get into forensic journal-
ism on the general matter of how moderation is
managed on the PT Forums or how the owners of the
site manage any aspect of their web site.
Not sure of the attribution, but t’was said:
Fair comment on all your points Perry.
I don’t know who ‘Sharpie’ is and was not party to your interactions, but the impression I have is that history is repeating itself.
I know it can be hurtful to be criticised and second-guessed, and for that hurt I apologise. You Moderators walk a tightrope, I know.
Regards, Peter.
Those are some pretty weak arguments Perry
Too much of the criticism on the PT
forums is not based on hands-on, been-
there-tried-that, didn’t like it, here’s
the report basis.
I’ve never had hands-on experience of surprise bottom sex by a big fat smelly ugly man…… but I’m 100% certain I don’t need to experience it hands-on to be able form an opinion about it. The old don’t knock it till you’ve tried it argument is just weak weak weak.
Additionally with the Pyhrric victory bit….Bah humbug!!! So all anybody has to do to change the way things are done is to threaten to cost you some money you’ll fold.
Cheers
Spaceman
“…surprise bottom sex by a big fat smelly ugly man…”
Errk! Ouch! What an image!
But, yeah, I know what you’re saying. I do my research and have developed my international-patents-pending test (first mentioned on PropertyTalk):
“Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck … IS a duck.”
I don’t need to ‘feel the burn’ all over again or go into the draw for a colour TV before I form an opinion.
And when I notice someone being er, misleading about his identity (like MUFFIT) well … ‘Caution: extremely low credibility may result.’
Welcome along Spaceman – Peter
Perry neatly summarises the unofficial PT policy:
“Regrettably, it is not the cogency of the accusations, but the depth of the accusers pockets that decides, most times.
We won! (but we’re bankrupt and destitute) has a hollow, galling and Pyrrhic ring to it.”
Fine. Yet this unofficial PT policy of surrendering every time a car backfires loudly is not the main issue, in my view.
By all means, PT has the right to wave the white flag at real or imagined financial threats, if this makes them feel safe and happy.
What poormastery finds slightly galling is the “Free and Independent” tagline PT simultaneously uses to advertise itself. “Free and in the pockets of spruiker advertisers” might be more accurate?
Finally, poormastery would like to offer the main reason why I believe that PT should change the unofficial appeasement, collaboration and surrender policy. This policy is a danger to the owners and monitors health.
Let me explain. Scientists have found the biggest cause of early death, and it isn’t bad food, smoking or stress (exactly).
Other independent studies involving a variety of unrelated issues provided the evidence. One involved scientists studying monkeys. They found that dominant monkeys lived much longer. Obvious. The reason the monkeys were dominant was because they were stronger, so obviously they would live longer. So the scientists did an interesting thing – they put a large number of dominant monkeys from different groups together. The “new” dominant monkeys continued to live forever. The monkeys that were no longer dominant (but had been just previously) died like flies. Being in control of the group massively improved longevity.
Other independent studies provided further evidence of the monkey thesis. Civil service records go back forever. Studies expected to find the people at the top living less long. No – these people were in control of decision-making, so the “stress” they felt was not real, and they lived forever, compared to the people at the bottom of the organisation. Being mindlessly ordered around is not good for longevity. Having a perception of having control over your own destiny and life was vital to health.
The study found that the most stressed employees were those at the bottom, who had no influence on decision-making, and no control over their own lives. One interviewee was particularly sad – his responsibility was to ensure all the fire extinguishers worked. He couldn’t sleep for days before his appraisal (his boss was a bully), and he felt trapped and helpless. He couldn’t afford to leave his job – heart attacks ensued.
The point is this. If you are consistently being bullied, this could be extremely bad for your health (potentially worse than having a bad diet or smoking), damaging for your marriage, and shattering for your self esteem.
Poormastery watched the aforementioned documentary, and decided that I would never accept being bullied at work or in life, because the consequences of such acceptance can be too dangerous.
It is vital for your health to feel in control of your own life, rather than live your life at the behest of the whims of idiot spruikers. This is my friendly advice to PT owners & monitors for the day, although I doubt they will listen. So be it!
Kind regards,
*p*
By golly, I’ve missed your gifted satire and caricature, poormastery.
“… surrendering every time a car backfires loudly…” *
Thanks for so eruditely dropping these pearls of wisdom. Nice.
regards, Peter
* that’s funny because it’s not true.
Perry does not summarise any policy, of any entity
unofficial or otherwise. Perry merely observes that
certain facts of life obtain. One aphorism quoted
from time-to-time goes something like: do not become
embroiled in legal proceedings unless you are quite
sure that you can afford to lose. Even if you win.
That’s understandable, Perry.
Is it a little dissonant of you to query others’ ‘moral fibre’, perhaps?
See this extract: http://www.thepaepae.com/honest-opinion/15370/
[…] Recent discussions here on thePaepae.com have made me consider it again. We discussed how the PropertyTalk discussion forum introduced new moderation policies and substantial censorship “to avoid litigation”. […]
[…] all that said, as we discussed earlier, it’s still important, for credibility, to link to sources as much as possible. Like thePaepae.com on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Share […]
[…] Wood’s track record is just as inspiring (not quite the word I was looking […]
[…] must say, looking at his track record, and statements from his former business partners that contradict that, and his ‘new […]
[…] is a dirty ratfink liar’ than it is to lay out your case (as we discussed briefly in Linking to sources…) — but not as […]
[…] about what exactly was defamatory about the the posts in question — which, you may recall was my ‘answer’ a threatening legal letter from Richmastery’s Smith & Jones complaining about an Olly Newland article dismantling their hyperbolic and half-baked commercial […]
[…] See: Linking to sources — why it’s vital for credibility (Case study: property spruiker Sean Wood) […]
[…] discussed before my preferred policy of tackling criticism head-on, and also, as a policy, publishing all threats I receive. Former novelist and British MP Louise Mensch (pic: The […]
[…] of news stories — wherever they’re found. Plus, he fills his stories with links — (one of my own bugbears) and references to source documents, where available … making journalism […]
[…] also covered in the NZ Herald. Something else to add to the demonstrated track record of Sean Wood and his business partner Steve Goodey. Spruikers, if you ask […]
[…] does what I try to do: go to the source. In this case, arguing the question of whether blogger = journalist, she talks to the […]
[…] discussed my view of the value of linking to sources — to demonstrate the veracity of [contentious?] statements or claims — and I stand by […]
[…] Carlson-esque character assassination and, not providing sources, as I have often said before (see Linking to sources — why it’s vital for credibility (Case study: property spruiker Sean Wood for example) is a dead giveaway for making sh*t […]