Forum Replies Created
- Originally posted by aussierogue:
martin is jenman in drag!
Jo, now that’s funny – take a leaf.
Originally posted by Monopoly:I am as much a granny as you are infantile!!!
Jo, you walked right into this one. You think I’m immensely infantile, so can we deduce anything from that? , Unless of course you’re a gorgeous young girl (perhaps blond) and, by deductive reasoning, you are telling me I’m very mature. Thank you!
The Mortgage Advisor – not sure where the idea came from that I was an advocate of Jenman. I think it goes back to a post I made that referenced an article by Jenman. Again this demonstrates my point because many of the regulars, including moderators’ mischievous little minds went into overdrive spouting how I was an “agent of Neil Jenman’ to draw attention from my comments about Steve and his book.
Nothing could be further from the truth. So I really do not have an opinion one way or the other I would like to express about the guy.
Jo,
Wow touchy!!!
Just for those of you who are interested, the bit that was edited was where I suggested that much of the advice given on these pages came from peoples’ bottoms (only I used the more colourful word beginning with A). I presume it was cut because the editor was concerned that none of you were able to make your own minds up about me, my aims and the content of the discussion thread. Unless of course Jo finds the A word genuinely offensive.
Although I really think it was her attempt to provoke because it really was nothing your granny would blush at. Jo are you an old granny?
Robert, he may well be, but no more so than, for instance, someone who sells advice <<edited>> and then offers additional advice (at a cost) to getting yourself out of it! <<edited>>
Monopoly,
I think you forgot the heading of this forum – Opinionated.
“Have something to get off your chest”.
I think posters are also invited to “ step onto our soapbox and have your say”. Why do you get all shitty when people do? Lighten up, it’s only a bit of fun.
Back to the fun…
You say
“but to blatantly come to the site to attack Steve McKnight without any just cause, other than, because you disagree is purely childishness and disrespectful to say the least!!”
Unless it has escaped you, I have little respect for Steve’s methods, and I’m not sure that I would consider it childish to have a go now and again, it’s how we get balance. Bottom-line here is you plainly just don’t like my approach (albeit a bit of a sledgehammer one), and you can’t think of any other way to respond other than to retort with suppositions about my intellect and purposes.
Whilst we’re having fun, I’m not sure why sarcasm any more or less appropriate than a direct attack. Not to labour this too much, but a dictionary definition of sarcasm is:
sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
By this definition are you not just as guilty as me?
And the point you really missed is the criticism that you should moderate, not take sides.
The Mortgage Advisor,
The point I am making is that Monopoly appears to have clashed with forum posters. Your postings ad weight to that argument, whether you like it or not. If you do not appreciate being used as an example, why make your views public?
Finally:
You say:
“Regarding Jenman, I think he is a tosser.”
Back to you –
“The uneducated person resorts to insults and threats when they have nothing to contribute.”
Monopoly,
Here is a pretty reasonable definition of the term moderate:
An officer who presides over an assembly to preserve order and regulate the proceedings.
Let’s analyse your two responses to my posts:
You said:
“Such insight!!! Are you speaking from a professional/trained perspective or is this something that you read in a book, and if so, whose theory are you referring????”
I say:
I wonder if sarcasm is the top of the list at moderator school?
You said:
“And judging from that comment MartinW, I see a well-mannered one at that (NOT)!!!”
I say:
Again wonderful sarcasm – especially the “NOT” bit, just in case we did not understand your attempt at humour.
All you have done is proven my point that this site is bias when moderators like you are consistently partisan with your views. Notwithstanding the dubious approach you have to “moderating”.
You do seem to clash with other contributors don’t you, eg your impartial dealings with The Eccentric (NOT)!!!.
I have seen a number of posts that ask the question; what qualifies a person to be a moderator? Obviously nothing.
PS you picked a great name for yourself; Monopoly. Here’s another dictionary definition:
Monopoly – Exclusive control by one group or person.
[edited by admin]
Status anxiety is perpetuated by an individuals need to be accepted as an equal. In a democratic meritocracy we all have the same chances. If we make it then we can pat ourselves on the back and can be proud of the fact that we did it with our own mettle. Conversely, if we don’t make it then we only have ourselves to blame.
Trouble is this site is not democratic, it’s heavily biased towards followers of Steve and his version of the world, and this little world that you all participate in is one of the worst examples of status and boasting rights.
Hang on, I feel an anxiety attack brought on by my one-star rating. Better go and get some therapy. How about I read another chapter of Steve’s book, or will that make me make me feel worse?
Originally posted by WallFlower:they’d back Steve to the hilt, knock the knocker and finish with a flurry of other peoples’ sayings – very amusing herd mentality.
A wise saying goes ‘ a man that does not draw from the knowledge of others is a man that is continually thirsty’Actually i just made that one up, you can use it if you like when replying to any other posts…
And a man who draws from the one well risks meeting the same people every day with the same opinions, same outlook and same mentality.
Originally posted by aussierogue:whole weekend to think about a response hey martin.
yr tone is littered with self righteous, self important statements like
‘very amusing herd mentality, sycophants, cats among the pigeons’.
and then taking some lame credit for somehow being insightfully controversial is also the height of self dellusionment.
the truth is i dont think anyone has a problem with some of the questions you have raised – its just the tone with wch you have raised them makes you sound like a tosser.
brgds
Hey there valued contributor, maybe you’ll get another star now.
My word you lot take this all a bit too seriously. I’m off to the pub!
Steve, can I moderate?
How predictable were many of these responses (and some of you could just not help yourselves doing that irksome quoting other people thing).
I suppose I had 2 objectives when I placed this post:
1) To get up the @rses of people who hate this type of post – success!
2) To further my assertion that the hype that surrounded Steve’s book was manufactured (wittingly or otherwise) in order to boost sales. The problem I had was that the book targeted patsies who parted with their thirty bucks without a cat in house chance of ever making it work, and it is my belief that the apparent failure of the Today Tonight project highlights the fact that it takes more than 150 pages of advice and “outdated” figures to make a success of it. It takes guts, determination, a good head on your shoulders and a bit of luck (not forgetting some money).It’s like selling book on how to be an Olympic Swimmer in 10 easy lessons, I did. By Kieran Perkins, and then placing your bookstall outside McDonalds.
Oh I forgot – Steve’s post said:
“
“Are we always going to discuss YOU and not what we are here to discuss, that is PROPERTY.”Amen!
Steve McKnight”
I’ll retort with this:
“
Opinionated:
Have something you want to get off your chest? Need some advice about an organisation? Have a post that doesn’t fit anywhere else? Step onto our soapbox and have your say!”– so long as it’s about property!
But that’s not the point Dram. The whole premise of Steve’s book is about his claims that using his approach they are able to build up portfolio of properties worth a million (or whatever). Even with Steve at the helm this project appears to have failed the test. The outcomes, based upon the information in Steve’s book, did not meet the expectations of those that bought it.
It was aimed at mums and dads, who did not have the wherewithal to make it work. Steve’s book made one believe that it was as easy and was sold under that pretext, and even he could not make it work with those he claimed could achieve the same results he did. That’s what’s wrong.
I just noticed that in fact there was mention about this in the Guru forum. However, since Steve did not comment on that occasion, and in the wake of a rather flakey response to the ABC, perhaps Steve might feel the need to comment further and help others understand why they too are not even close to being in control of one property since reading his book.
I think you find that there is a huge spectrum of motives – sure you will have those with a primary motive of making a wedge and will be unscrupulous, and then you will have the well meaning. However, what they all exploit is ignorance and avarice. But what truly annoys me is that the titles are so glib – “how I made millions and you can do so too with tuppence, an egg-box carton and some stickyback plastic.”
They are designed to appeal to Mr and Mrs average by manipulating their emotions in the full knowledge that in 4 weeks time the book will be gathering dust next to the Ab-rider from Danoz Direct!
quote:
When a problem is created the solution is created simultaneouslyTell that to Einstein and his quest for a Grand Unified Theory!
My apologies for the rather crass articulation of my point, but the sentiment remains the same. I came to this site with constructive criticism of Steve’s book, which had some great responses, but equally we had some right know-it-all retorts. And I like to point them out, because no one likes advice born out of hubris.
BTW Del…. This “new” topic is for Del. It was in response to your posting telling me off for starting a new topic thread.
That’s only speculation and certainly not what is purported in the hype on TV etc.
[/quote]
OK, even though at the moment, it is yesterdays news, IT IS ALSO TOMORROWS NEWS IN ADVANCE!!!
Its all about cycles and getting active at the bottom of the cycle.
Will those +ve geared properties pop up close to town in the future. You betcha they will. Just gotta wait; and armed with the knowledge attained through the likes of Steve today; you will recognize them for what they are, a golden opportunity.
Cheers
http://netvantage.netfirms.com
[/quote]
