User talk:Eric Arthur B.

Welcome!

Hello, Eric Arthur B., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Knverma (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Amway
Hi Eric, regarding your edits to the Amway article, I suggest you look at some of the Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. no original research. This will help you to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Regards, Knverma (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should take a look at what has been going on, on my talk page. The so-called 'Amway Corp' is undoubtedly one of the biggest frauds in the world today. I think it's apologist's strangle-hold on Wikipedia has just begun to crumble. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently not very active here currently so will just make brief comments. You are new here, so try to go through teh policies and guidelines. For discussions on talk pages, refer to the civility guideline. Other than that, discussions like the one below get off-topic. Invitations to betting don't help in improving Wikipedia articles. If you have reliable sources (newspapes articles, court documents, ...) to prove tax fraud then it can be added to the article, otherwise these discussions serve no purpose on Wikipedia. They are better done on external forums. --Knverma (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, as I'm sure you are aware, there are much greater issues at stake here than Wikipedia's rules. The 'Amway Corp' is a very complex Trojan Horse - a mystifying illusion which has been used to infiltrate, and exploit, traditional culture. An open-to-all encyclopedia is a very dangerous forum to debate, or present, a cultic front like 'Amway'. I was requested to edit the 'Amway' Wikipedia article and debate in a provocative style for a specific reason. In short, evidence was required that agents of 'Amway's' instigators are still trying to maintain an absolute monopoly of information about criminal activity. 'Insider' has very kindly supplied that evidence.

Anyone who examines the bait in a trap without realizing its true purpose, risks getting caught themselves. In order to have any chance of understanding cultism, it much be approached from the (apparently subjective) point of view that its results are always the product of a contagious deception, the victims of which accept fiction as 'fact'. Only then, can the phenomenon be examined with genuine objectivity. I do not propose to waste any further time debating with demonstrably psychotic individuals like 'Insider', either on Wikipedia or any other forum. You must have observed that none of my talk was addressed directly to him. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric ... you are making wholesale changes to this article with extremely POV and unbalanced editing and little or no sourcing of your claims. Please cease or discuss the changes you wish to make in Talk first. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric, I know who you are and your posts with regard to me may be considered defamatory and even threatening under French law. Consider that a warning. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

All 'Insider's' posts are written in the thought-stopping jargon of 'Multilevel Marketing'. How can any of his statements be considered to be from a neutral point of view ?
 * I've contributed very little to the Amway article, so no idea what you're talking about there. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

'Insider's' extraordinary defence of the dark 'Amway' labyrinth has been to stand at its entrance like a faithful, but toothless, old guard dog. He has been trained to growl at anyone trying to shine a light on his masters' dubious activities in the hope that they will turn and run in away. 'Insider' puts me in mind of Saddam Hussein's former 'Minister of Information', Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

What possible legitimate motive could 'Insider' have for removing from Wikipedia up-to-date information about the BERR petition to wind up 'Amway UK Ltd.'?

It is public knowledge that the UK government has appealed the High Court's recent decision to allow 'Amway' to remain in the UK.


 * I mass removed all your POV editing, not a specific section. Your posting on the BERR v Amway case wasn't even accurate. They are not still facing the petition, they're facing an appeal against the decision, technically different things. You also completely failed to mention that the judge refused BERR's request to not allow Amway to return to full operation including sponsoring. The BERR appeal *should* be in there, indeed I'll go do it myself soon.


 * Your other comments re "trained to growl" etc are just pathetic. I have no masters. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Sahaeed al Sahaf's, sorry, 'Insider's' pretence of intellectual authority beggars belief. Self-evidently, if the UK government's appeal is upheld, then 'Amway UK Ltd.' will be wound up. Therefore, the company is still facing the public interest petition to have it wound up. Judge Norris seems to have taken the view that no one could be so dim as to want to sign up with 'Amway UK' now the average losses per agent have been exposed. After all, the claimed number of UK 'Amway' agents has fallen from 33 000 (in 2006) to an insignificant figure since the BERR investigtion became public knowledge.
 * If the government's appeal is upheld then it will quite possibly be appealed further. Your claim of "an insignificant figure" is completely false. Despite a public court case and a sponsoring moratorium, well over a third of registered IBOs requested their businesses be renewed in the "new model". Given the circumstances and the fact only about half renew in the old model, this is an excellent vote of confidence. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Now why would 'Amway' UK', a technically insolvent company with total, declared trading losses (according to the tax record) of over 50 millions dollars want to spend all this time and money trying to remain 'in business' if it wasn't the bait in an even bigger, advanced fee fraud ? Exactly like Mohammed Saheed al Sahaf, Insider's, 'Information' comes from his billionaire masters, but he steadfastly denies this. Given 'Amway UK's' track record (34 years of deliberately offering outrageously over-priced products presented as 'good value', occulting the derisory average incomes, or rather losses, of its agents, etc.) one would have to be pretty deluded, or corrupt, to swallow this latest propaganda. I wonder if 'Insider' would like to put his money where his mouth is and have a little side bet on whether 'Amway UK' will be wound up.
 * Amway UK was a basket case, I could have told you that *before* the BERR investigation. It's been badly operated almost since launch, either at an IBO leadership level, a corporate level, or both. Numerous UK IBOs tell me that, properly marketed, the majority of the products are not outrageously overpriced and are price competitive. IMO the major problem, and this applies to Amway in many countries, is that the competitiveness has dwindled over the decades (it used to be an easy sell) and now true knowledge of the products benefits and their market competitors are needed to market them. Instead too many groups went the "buy from your own store and save money" approach, which is not IMO an efficient one and indeed requires even *more* product training in order to operate successfully. Neither Amway nor most IBO leadership has been offering that training.


 * The end result is that business model was not working, and like any other business model that isn't working, without change, it was slowly but surely heading towards business failure. In the UK case change was instigated rather faster than it may otherwise have occurred, which in my opinion is a good thing. I also think it would have happened anyway.


 * Amway clearly offers some excellent value products, in particular the Nutrilite and Artistry ranges, which compromise the majority of Amway turnover. If there are good products available at a good enough price, then you have a business opportunity. Everything else is related to how you manage that opportunity.--Insider201283 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

'Once you have removed the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.' This typically mystifying, scripted nonsense from 'Insider' completely ignores the fact that the secret, overwhelming, financial activity within 'Amway UK' has been the sale to its insolvent agents of books, tapes, CDs, tickets to meetings, etc., on the pretext that these materials will bring 'prosperity, happiness and freedom.' All the quantifiable evidence proves that the corporate officers of 'Amway UK' have deliberately occulted this lucrative, criminal activity for 34 years. The cash receipts of this classic, advanced fee fraud have been shipped out of the UK to a bunch of sanctimonious racketeers in the USA without the payment of UK tax. Now that makes the corporate officers of 'Amway UK' part of conspiracy to commit fraud and to pervert the course of justice. Virtually, the first thing 'Amway UK' did when the BERR investigators arrived was to ban the sale of these materials, despite the fact that 'Amway UK' has claimed for 34 years that it is not responsible for selling them. It also explains why it is in the interests of US-based racketeers that the the so-called 'Amway Business Opportunity' has remained centrally-controlled, and rigged, so that it has been impossible for hundreds of thousands of UK participants to make a dime. 'Insider' is manifestlty not a cretin. Therefore, he is the sophist for American thieves. Much of the Wikipedia article on 'Amway' is a perfect reflection of the criminogenic organization itself - a puerile, but nonetheless pernicious, fiction presented as 'fact.'
 * The organisation I work with, which was a significant one in the UK marketplace and against whom BERR dropped their case, does not operate on "cash receipts" and is a fully incorporated body in the UK. Your thesis is clearly based on overgeneralized assumptions. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! 'Insider' now suddenly admits that he has masters, but he 'works with' them not for them. Interestingly, several other (now-defunct) UK corporate structures peddling all the books, tapes, CDs, tickets to meeting, etc., of which 'Insider' writes were the subject of the BERR enquiry. However, they vanished to prevent further investigation. This is what 'Insider' refers to when he says 'BERR dropped their case'. 'Insider' has stopped his growling. He is now like a forger's errand-boy caught trying to pass counterfeit bank-notes. His feeble defence is: 'well parts of them are OK'.
 * Are you always so dishonest and deceitful? You are "working with" Wikipedia right now. Does that make Wikipedia your "masters"? BWW shut down and left. Network TwentyOne did not. It is a complete lie to say "they vanished to prevent further investigation". Or perhaps you're not lying, your just proving your very ignorant about that which your write. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

'Insider' growls again. Typically, he ignores the real issues and poses as the self-righteous victim of lies. He really should learn to read all the words in a sentence. Several other (now defunct) corporate strucures... of which Insider writes were the subject of the BERR enquiry.' No one suggested that 'Insiders' masters have vanished. He really should stop putting words into other people's mouths in front of witnesses and projecting his own intellectual failings onto others. By the way the contraction of 'you are very ignorant about that which you write', is written 'you're very ignorant', not 'your very ignorant'. Perhaps 'Insider' is a fan of the plays of Ernie Wise.
 * Umm, no. You explictly stated you were addressing what I was referring to when I said "Berr dropped their case". I was referring to network 21, which is still a fully registered and operational UK company. I can't speak for BWW, which did indeed pack up and leave, however you in your prolific writing do not specifically address your attacks against BWW, you attack all of Amway and IBO leadership and organisations. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

'Insider' is back to his counterfeit bank-notes again, his masters have evidently deliberately included one or two without any apparent faults to prevent and divert investigation of the rest. I thought the 'Amway' mob had promised Judge Norris to stop using the reality-inverting term 'Independent Business Owner' to describe their insolvent commission agents. After all, 33 000 of them were shut down in the UK by central decree. How independent was that?
 * I've no idea what your conterfeit bank-notes waffle is about. Is your new book as difficult to understand? To the best of my knowledge the change from IBO to ABO had nothing to do with Judge Norris. The name was already being changed in other markets. If the best you've got is to criticise the use of the word "independent" then you've got bigger fish to fry than Amway. McDonald's for example refers to their franchisee's as "independent" and they have A LOT more restrictions than an Amway ABO. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Insider's logic is flawed by the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of McDonalds' final transactions take place between its franchisees and genuine retail customers, within a viable open-market with a consistent source of external revenue. In the case of 'Amway', all the quantifiable evidence proves that completely the reverse applies. If MacDonalds' franchisees consumed the overwhelming majority of the burgers they sold, they would soon either explode or go bankrupt. 'Insider,' should throw away his intellectually-restricting 'Amspeak' manuals and invest in a good English dictionary. The first word he should look up is, 'metaphor'. 'Insider,' who is demonstrably an unquestioning adherent of the Utopian 'Amway' myth, has posted a vindictive and defamatory article on his Websites, 'The Truth About Amway' and 'IBO Fightback', in which he seeks to identify and damage the Wikipedia editor, 'Eric Arthur B.'. In this article, 'Insider' falsely describes Eric Arthur B./David Brear as a 'well-known member of the anti-Amway cult'. David Brear is, in fact, the author of 'The Universal Identifying Characteristics of a Cult' (Axiom Books, 2005). His long-awaited new book, "'Amway' The American Dream Made Nightmare", has a foreword by Dr. Edward Lottick (the former Chairman of the Cult Awareness Network). Needless to say, 'Insider' is not of sufficient significance to receive a mention. 'Insider' obviously has no idea of the immense significance of the name, Eric Athur B., in the history of exposing occult totalitarian movements using the literary concept of extended mataphor. The Irony of 'Insider's' ignorance is exquisite.
 * Unfortunately your logic is flawed by the fact you don't understand what makes a genuine retail customer or what external revenue is. Don't tell me you too fall for that "closed system" rubbish? Just curious, is Amway:TADMN going to be published by the same company as your first book? --Insider201283 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, with 'Insider's' absurd misspelling of the common English word, 'flawed' (which he has subsequently attempted to hide, although he obviously thought that the word was, 'floored') it seems like the appropriate moment to leave him to stew in 'Amway's' self-gratifying, group delusion of moral and intellectual authority
 * oh, a typo, my mistake. But you're right, I wasn't aware of Orwell's real name. You're seriously comparing yourself to Orwell? Hahahahahahahahahahahha. Now that's funny :) --Insider201283 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Insider's previous noises have reached a new level of irony. In the Appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell wrote: "Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately, it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning 'to quack like a duck.'"

Revealing personal information
of other Wikipedia editors, without their explicit consent, is a huge problem. Please don't do it again. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm here to underline and repeat the warning. The posting of real life names of users who choose to be anonymous is considered a very serious disruption, and may lead to banning. Outing Please be more careful in the future.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Amway has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Amway constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Amway. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.  Mattie TK  11:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The sub-section of the article in question details a recent court case in the UK. All facts stated in my additions come from verifiable sources (i.e. court documents) which are available on the Net., and which are already attached to the article. The main author of the sub-section of the article, 'Insider,' has declared in 'my talk' that he 'works with' a company 'Network 21' described in the article and which was, originally, part of the same government investigation and petition. Insider is ,therefore, a de facto agent of the subject of this Wikipedia article. I am merely endeavouring to explain what the UK government's case comprised, but 'Insider' is preventing the readers of Wikipedia from reading this information by systematically deleting it. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the main author of the article, that's a ridiculous claim. My potential COI and influence on NPOV is also well known and declared on my user page. Care to declare yours? I'd also point that I've not been the only one deleting your over ambitious edits today. As I've suggested MANY times already I suggest you read the wikipedia editing guidelines and rules.--Insider201283 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the Eric Arthur B. analogue has some relevance - how very Orwellian of you to "change history" and change your original text above in response to my response. Alas (for you), wikipedia saves all. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orwellian analogue? (presumably, 'Insider' means 'analogy'). Change history? And all because the word 'sub-section' was added, to clarify his wilful misinterpretation.
 * I meant analogue, mostly to irritate you because I knew what your predictable response would be. Analogue is a perfectly acceptable choice of word in that context. Look it up. As for my wilful misinterpretation, well forgive me for reading what you wrote instead of what you meant to write. You substanially changed the meaning of what you wrote. Different original text would have lead to a different response from me. A person of integrity would simply admit the mistake and say so in the conversation, not change it in the hope the casual reader might not notice. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It must be clear by now that this individual, 'Insider', exhibits the characteristics of a core-believer in a closed-logic cultic myth. Anyone unfortunate enough to have had contact with this type of extremely irritating person will recognise all the classic signs. The great paradox of cultism is that persons under its influence will steadfastly claim to be absolutely righteous, even when all the quantifiable evidence proves their behaviour to be (at best) misguided, or (at worst) downright evil. Although they are demonstrably dissociated from external reality, cult adherents are always certain that they alone represent the truth, and they act accordingly. In order for cult adherents to re-enter reality, they have first to accept the ego-destroying truth that they have been fooled. 'The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.' In the case of 'Amway', the major facts are plain and irrefutable, but at the present time, 'Insider's' brain is programmed to disregard them. His self-esteem, and related psychological function, are dependent on maintaining lies. Insider's tactics are always to attack anyone stating these major facts and to attempt to drag any debate down to a puerile level. 'Amway UK Ltd.' has been registered in the UK since 1973. At one point the organization was claiming almost 100 000 followers, but the average annual figure is approximately 30 000. 'Amway UK' now claims less than 10 000 followers. Given 'Amway'UK's' accepted annual drop-out rate over the period of its existence(approximately 50%) by extrapolation, at least 1 million so-called 'businesses' have vanished in the UK alone. In the recent court case in the UK, the government's evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt that virtually no one who has signed a contract with 'Amway UK' during the previous 34 years has received an overall material benefit from the operation of what 'Amway's' instigators arbitrarily define as a 'business'. The overwhelming majority of people who have been deceived into signing a contract with 'Amway', abandon the organization within a short time when they fail to make any money. However, a significant core-group (usually, with access to independent funds) have undergone a nighmarish, personality transformation and recklessly dissipated all their mental, physical and financial resources to the benefit of hitherto unknown persons whom they continued to trust and follow no matter what suffering this entailed. 'Amway's' so-called 'Multi-level Marketing' is to economics what 'Creationism' is to mainstream, quantifiable science. Interestingly, both the creators of the 'Amway' myth, Richard De Vos and Jay Van Andel, were supporters of 'Creationism'. There is even a 'Van Andel Creation Research Centre' just North of the Chino Valley in Arizona. Hopefully, one day 'Insider' will be able to face up to what he has done, but, currently, he's so deeply entrenched in the 'Amway' bunker, that that seems very unlikely for a long time. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's incredibly has little insight you have in to your own behaviour. BERR lost the case - obviously a devastating result for you, and a clear fact you don't seem to be able to accept. Along with the fact that governments around the world have cleared Amway as a legitimate business. As have business leaders and academics around the world. Indeed, not far from you is ESSEC, a prestige business school, whose former head as written two books on Amway. As Judge Norris said, it's a business opportunity, not a guarantee. Ironically you have the very seeds of understanding in what your wrote - "so-called 'businesses'" and "arbitrarily define as a 'business'". That's the key, EAB. Neither you, nor I, nor Amway gets to define whether something is or is not actually a business. Tax authorities do that. By far the majority of people who register with Amway are not running businesses. As the case made clear, only 6% even bought product for resale - a requirement for folk below platinum to earn a bonus. At least 94% of registered folk were not running a business, with no expectation of profit, as you even state yourself, most stop pursuing it shortly after joining!. Yet you seem to think it's some disaster that people with no reasonable expectation of making money don't make any money! It sounds almost like you're disappointed it's not some easy money scheme! Part of the the benefit of this model is that people can get involved at low cost and try it out. If they feel it's not for them, they can just easily stop, and in most cases get most or all of their money back if they chose. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. It's the whole point! Again, as Norris said, it's an opportunity, not a guarantee. As for Van Andel's creationism support - that has exactly what relevance? For the record, I'm an atheist. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Representatives of BERR remain quietly confident that they won their case and that the appeal court will overturn the dismissal of the public interest petition to have 'Amway UK Ltd.' wound up. 'Insider' turns reality on its head. He claims that it is others who cannot accept facts, but he completely ignores the fact that Mr. Justice Norris' 69 page ruling confides that BERR was perfectly justified in requesting the immediate closure of 'Amway UK Ltd.' because the company was acting outside of the strict parameters laid down by UK legislation appertaining to fraudulent trading schemes, and that had 'Amway UK' not handed up undertakings during the course of the hearing he would have had no alternative other than to order the closure of the company. Had Mr. Justice Norris simply dismissed all the claims made by BERR against 'Amway' (which has been spun by 'Amway's' legal representatives),then he would have awarded costs to the company.

In simple terms, Judge Norris accepted BERR's claim that 'Amway' (as was) was not in the public interest, but, given the restricted evidence (which, by law, could only include the activities of 'Amway UK Ltd.)in all fairness he couldn't accept BERR's further claim that 'Amway's Business Model is inherently objectionable', and that the company's recent promises to have changed it radically (in order to comply with UK laws) cannot be trusted. However, given the wider evidence, no one in their right mind could possibly trust the word of anyone connected with 'Amway'.

The idea that 94% of people who have signed a contract with 'Amway' were aware that they had absolutely no chance of making any money,and were acting with their fully-informed consent, is preposterous. Why should anyone want to buy essentially common-place products that they can get in their local supermarket for a fraction of the cost, if they weren't acting under the delusion that: simply by buying a regular quota of these 'positive' products each month, and recruiting their social contacts to do the same, etc. anyone can achieve 'Financial Freedom' (in 2-5 years)? The paperwork from lawsuits filed in the USA by destitute persons who have lost all their money by falling for the 'Amway' myth, fills a small warehouse. Over 46000 former 'Amway' agents are on the mailing list of just one US-based Website posting free information about 'Amway'. UK government lawyers were, and are, obliged by law not to present evidence like this to the High Court or to the Appeal Court. Insider is trying to prevent anything systematically categorized as 'Negative Information' (by the authors of the Utopian 'Amway' myth) from appearing on Wikipedia  Eric Arthur B. (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually on my website I've been very clear about the fact that Judge Norris said without the changes he would have closed Amway down. The problem wasn't Amway per se though, it was the one it was being promoted and Amway's lack of proper oversight. Yoru comment "Why should anyone want to buy essentially common-place products that they can get in their local supermarket for a fraction of the cost" reveals your complete lack of understanding of the Amway model. Amway's primary product ranges are Artistry and Nutrilite, supported by the Homecare range and others. Artistry products are clearly cheaper than other brands in the same "prestige" category. Nutrilite products simply have no competition in the marketplace, let alone the local supermarket. The LOC range is generally much much cheaper than competitors. They are not "common-place products" and you can't get them elsewhere at "a fraction of the cost". In the "new model" Amway changed their pricing on what, 13 products? Out of 450+? It's amazing how little you know of the business your so determined to destroy. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We should really thank 'Insider' for this flawless demonstration of the totalitarian, them versus us, cult mentality. In a cult, only the initiate can understand. Classically, any free-thinking individual challenging the authenticity of the group's pseudo-science is systematically categorized, denigrated and excluded as: 'unenlightened, evil,' etc.  In 'Amway' core-adherents usually believe that 'negatives' and 'Dreamstealers' are 'trying to destroy the Business out of jealousy, greed, stupidity, etc.'

'The real story of 'Nutrilite' and its creator, Carl F. Rehnborg (a former toothpaste salesman), deserves a mention at this point. Chief Legal Councel to the Federal Food and Drug Administration (1952-1971), William H. Goodrich, pursued Rehnborg and associates, Mytinger Caselberry (a psychologist and a cemetry plot salesman), through the federal courts for the best part of a decade. Goodrich who died recently, left an extensive verbal testimony which is partly available on the Net. According to Goodrich, at one stage, qualified scientists working for the FDA analysed the 'Exclusive Nutrilite Double X Food Supplement'. Although it contained essentially what it said on the label and was quite harmless, it was nothing more than a random mixture of cheaply-procured common substances (principally vegetable extracts, parsley, alfalfa, etc.). Rehnborg and his associates were peddling it for just under $20 per box back in the late 1940s (the equivalent of several hundred dollars today). The FDA estimated that this represented a mark up of around 1000%. It was nothing more than a 'medicine show', but on an industrial scale. Interestingly, Rehnborg sold exclusive distribution rights to another corporate structure, Mytinger and Casselberry Inc. Which, in turn, peddled 'Double X' to individuals who were under contract as non-salaried commission agents. They were supposed to buy a box per month and recruit their friends and relatives to the same. Rehnborg and his chums arbitrarily defined this activity as, 'Multilevel Marketing': Goodrich, called it a pyramid scam. However, this is only the beginning of the story. Some of the publications which came with 'Double X' were so absurd that it's difficult to believe that anyone could have taken them seriously. The potion was supposed 'to cure virtually all known human illness.' How 'Nutrilite' escaped closure and became part of 'Amway' in the 1970s is also fascinating, but I won't go into that right now. At the same time that Goodrich was investigating and prosecuting 'Nutrilite,' he was also on the trail of another greedy pseudo-scientist, L. Ron Hubbard - he also pretended 'to have discovered how to cure virtually all known huiman illness,' but he called his outrageously over-priced product 'Dianetics'. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The formulation of Double X, even back in the 40s, was by no means "a random mixture". It was constantly improved upon, as it is today, to a much higher level of professionalism. In my investigations into nutritional supplements (I'm a former health science researcher, previously skeptical of the idea of micronutrition supplementation) I discovered that the original Double X was quite high in Vitamin E, well before components of E had been synthesisied and included in competitive products. It was quite unique and still is. While many of the claims made were clearly excessive, and Nutrilite was spanked for it, that does not change the core thesis, today well supported by research, that few people eat adequate diets and many are depleted or deficient in one or more essential nutrients. Such depletions and deficiences clearly lead to various health issues. Just as clearly, nutrients sourced from natural sources (eg plants) are generally (both not always) far superior to synthetic analogues (synthetic Vitamin E for example, is only one form of Vitamin E) in addressing those issues. Today we have clinical studies, well supported by established universities, clearly showing the benefits of supplementation by Double X. The interview with Goodrich shows his clear ignorance of modern research in this area, which is understandable given his age at the time.
 * Of more interest though is that the FDA did not go after Nutrilite per se, they went after Mytinger & Casselberry. M&C are the equivalent of today's IBO organizations. It is they who were (and are!) producing materials with hyperbolic statements and it is they who were training Nutrilite distributors. In the recent UK case, it was again generally the distributors that were over-promoting, not Amway itself. Amway was guilty of not properly "policing" their "sales force", something I've been quite critical of myself.
 * I note there's no response at all from you to the factual information that Amway products are competitive, if marketed to the right target groups, merely ad hominem attacks. Alas this is the standard approach of the anti-amway zealots, who simply ignore data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived ideas and claim them to be the product of some form of brainwashing, when they can clearly and easily be independently confirmed by anyone. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Amway lesson 12, when in difficulty, blind-em with science. For God sake! Rehnborg was a toothpaste salesman, Goodrich's testimony is backed up by a team of qualified scientists working for the FDA. 'Insider's' thought-stopping script says that 'Amway products are competitive, if marketed to the right target groups'. What the hell does that mean ? It sounds like English, but it could have come straight out of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.' Perhaps Insider should just Google-search, 'Amway consumer reports' and confront the reality that the number of hits is currently 137 000. For decades, virtually all independent consumer reports have supported what I, and countless destitute former adherents, say. Amway's common-place products are outrageously over-priced and are tantamount to being unsaleable on the open-market. Go to e-bay and find stacks of unsaleable 'Amway' stock. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you admitting you know so little about business and marketing that you don't even understand target groups and price competitiveness? Artistry products have been independently assessed as competiting in the "prestige" category of cosmetics, along with brands such as Estee lauder, Clinique, and Lancome. If you compare Artistry products with a lipstick from the local supermarket, then they are not price competitive - people who buy lipstick from their local supermarket are not the appropriate target market for cosmetics of this class. If however, you compare Artistry products with others in the same category, they are extremely price competitive. Similarly, if you understand concentration (which is clearly few of the anti-amway zealots who do so-called comparisons online) the Amway cleaning products are again extremely price competitive. As stated, there is little competition in the nutrition market, however many of the closest competitors are significantly *more* expensive than Nutrilite products. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We should thank 'Insider' again for his flawless demonstration of the devious art of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (taken straight out of the 'Amway' training manuals): 'Independently assessed', 'Prestige', 'cosmetics of this class'. What marvellous images these pretty words conjure up in the empty mind. Mountains of quantifiable evidence shows an entirely different and ugly picture.

As for 'Insider's' remorseless and tedious pretence of intellectual authority. When I posed the perfectly reasonable question 'What the hell does that mean? in respect of the corporate jargon, 'Amways products are competitive, if marketed to the right target groups,' it was because , by 'Amway's' own admission, 94% of its products don't get marketed to anyone, but its own agents. The phrase in its reality-inverting context could have come straight out of 'Nineteen Eighty-four'. In the real world, no free-thinking person buys 'Amway's' kitsch, comic-book products. That's an axiomatic statement. The idea that any of 'Amway's brands are 'prestige' is a puerile fantasy which exists only in the minds of deluded individuals like 'Insider'. I have several personal friends in the luxury products industry, they have never even heard of 'Amway' let alone 'Artistry'. As for the concentration red herring, for years 'Amway' has used this technical-sounding argument to mystify the world. I once went to interview a destitute former 'Amway' agent in Chesire England, who had been persuaded to buy stacks of 'Nutrilite' vitamins to maintain her 200 points per month 'Amway' quota. This young woman, a recent immigrant to the UK, had been paying £25 per box. The same vitamins were available in her local chemist for about 10% of this price. In total, she'd lost over £35 000 in 'Amway' in 4 years.Eric Arthur B. (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) The "prestige" categorisation is one neither I nor Amway have done, it was done by the independent company Euromonitor, which provides independent research to businesses.
 * (2) As already pointed out, but which you ignore, the majority of people who maintain Amway memberships do so to purchase the products at the wholesale pricing (and not to generate an income). They are not running businesses and are as legitimate a retail consumer as anyone else. This is something that the FTC understood in the 70s and continues to understand and explictly state today. You would prefer to arrogantly believe people are fools and that if they like the products should continue to pay a higher price than necessary rather than pay a yearly fee for a discount. In reality, people are not fools and many register with Amway for the better pricing. Of course, this option is no longer available in the new Amway UK model, apparently for no better reason than the inability of folk like yourself to comprehend rational decision making.
 * (3) The "destitute" distributor was actively and knowingly breaking the rules, not only of common business sense, but of Amway. As the 70% rule states (and you made clear you don't understand in your spammed "freedom" article), she should receive no bonus unless she had sold 70% of prior purchases. In other words, if she'd been honest with herself and Amway, there was zero benefit to her maintaining any PV level. What would you suggest? Should Amway have been sending the Amway police around to search her house to ensure she wasn't wilfully breaking the rules?
 * (4) There is no Amway "quota", like much of your blather, you made that up.
 * (5) The vast majority of Nutrilite products do not have "similar" products available in chemists. You are apparently as ignorant about the world of nutrition as you are about Amway, and indeed basic business principles. Alternatively, and perhaps as likely, you're not ignorant at all but prefer to ignore reality so that you may continue on your delusional crusade.

--Insider201283 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

'Insider' was previously convinced that anyone challenging the authenticity of his model of reality must be 'ignorant', but now he's not too sure. Perhaps they're on a 'delusional crusade.' There is, of course, a third explanation, but 'Insider' seems to spend the greater part of his life keeping this at bay. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Eric, please review Wikipedia's policies on civility and talk page use. WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing Amway or Insider201283. We're here to write articles. Please limit yourself to comments about our articles and on how to improve them. Continued focus on other editors and disparaging or personal comments about them may lead to you being blocked from editing here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Will. What policies does Wikipedia have on criminogenic organizations using its pages to shield fraud? Be warned, this 'Insider' character is the de facto agent of racketeers.Eric Arthur B. (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies that require that all information be verifiable in reliable sources, and that all information be presented with the neutral point of view. Properly applied, those keep out the worst of the problems. As for your posting on my talk page, there's nothing we can do about what folks post on their blogs elsewhere. We can only deal with "on-wiki" behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Will. That doesn't answer my important question: What policies does Wikipedia have on criminogenic movements using its pages to shield fraud?

Verifiable evidence (in the form of audited accounts retrieved by a team of certified accountants working for the UK government) was presented in the recent UK civil court case against 'Amway'. This evidence proved that 'Amway UK Ltd.' has always been an insolvent corporate structure. In fact (according to the recent judgement), it's lost over $50 millions in the last 8 years. This information makes absolutely no sense in isolation. Why should anyone, in their right mind, want to keep such an absurd company in existence? The answer to that is: because 'Amway UK Ltd.' is a deliberate fake - part of a much larger, advanced fee fraud. It is vital to the functioning of this fraud that 'Amway' maintains the appearance of authenticity. Wikipedia is being used by the de facto agent of racketeers for that very purpose, and you are a witness to this further criminal activity. Sadly, you can't have a neutral point of view about a deception without risking becoming part of the deception yourself. Would it be possible to write an accurate article about the Trojan Horse using only a 'neutral' equine vocabulary ?

'Amway' is presented externally all over the world as a labyrinth of (apparently independent) corporate structures. This labyrinth has been maliciously created to prevent, and/or divert, investigation and isolate the instigators of 'Amway' from liability. It would probably be in the best interests of your project to withdraw everything about 'Amway' and 'Multilevel Marketing' from Wikipedia until the full story becomes public knowledge. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an arm of law enforcement. We can only report what is written in reliable sources. If the court cases you refer to have been reported on then we can include a nuetral summary of that information in the articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you fail to answer my important question:

What policies does Wikipedia have on criminogenic movements using its pages to shield fraud?

No one is suggesting that Wikipedia is an arm of law enforcement. However, the administrators of Wikipedia have a duty of care to their readers not to allow a fiction to be presented as fact. The full 69 page judgement in the matter of 'Amway UK Ltd.' versus the UK Minister for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and subsequent appeal, are already attached to the Wikipedia article on 'Amway'. The case has only been partially reported in the Times, and without any detailed analysis. No other newspaper carried the story. 'Amway UK Ltd.' has spent millions of pounds in the past advertising in UK national newspapers and magazines. The legal representatives of the company have previously threatened at least one UK magazine with a lawsuit for publishing an article comparing 'Amway' with cults. The fact that 'Amway UK Ltd.' was dealt with using commercial laws is already a victory for its instigators. All the evidence proves that it is an outrageous fake. According to the judgement, 'Amway UK Ltd.' has been a technically insolvent corporate structure for the previous 34 years (losing approximately $50 millions in the last 8 years). It has funded its commercially suicidal activities by shipping in cash from overseas (declared in court to have come from 'Amway Korea'). By the organization's own claimed numbers of agents (which briefly touched 100 000 back in the 1980s) and accepted, average annual drop out rate of approximately 50%, it is possible to extrapolate the following irrefutable mathematical fact: at least 1 million annual contracts have been signed with 'Amway UK Ltd.' since 1973. No evidence has ever been produced to prove that any one of these signatories has received an overall material benefit from the operation of what 'Amway's' instigators arbitrarily, and falsely define, as a 'business'. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any such policies. If you'd like to review Wikipedia' policies yourself here is a list of them: List of policies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Without reading your policies, I'll guarantee that no one involved with the Wikipedia project has ever considered that this might happen. Eric Arthur B. (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)