Thread: A Humble Request (Merged)

TY Golden, I meant the 5yr program....sorry. We must remember, most people (including "professionals") don't take the time to read the details - it's why I read contracts and such at least 2x - once forward and once backward - that I not miss this type of thing.

So, the question remains---BM has been criticized for not dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" in terms of regulations---I have heard many stories of "investment clubs" and there are those even here who "loaned" for others out of their ROL and Picpay, clearly a no-no according to BM. Also, I saw many disclaimers regarding the 'marketing' of Pips. Again, forbidden as I understand it.

Another question: Think this one through before answering......What would be the main incentive to "hang tough" with this, rather than move whatever was left and liquidate?

Arcturus

ArcturusI, my thoughts on your questions.

"WHY do you think YOU would have left Pips?" (- How many stars are there? How much due dilligence did I do? Was I looking for "money for nothin' and chicks for free"? Am I responsible for my actions or am I just a sheep, a victim of a nasty ol' world lookin' to steal all my stuff?) - Why would I leave? I don't expect perfection from human beings so, for me it would take solid EVIDENCE of fraud or intent to do fraud BY THE PRINCIPALS (BM&S). To date I have seen no such EVIDENCE. That's why I'm still here.

"Why would there be no official statement regarding [this situation] on the "public" record of the Central Bank, even though a minor blurb is given on the website?" - Lacking a crystal ball or perhaps some repentant insider, we can't KNOW the answer to this. That culture requires no explanation to the "public" record. I imagine that they would even take offence that any member of the "public" would dare to question them at all! The message on the website was for their convenience, not ours.

"What was the driving force behind the C&D's in the states? Was it BM/Pips or was it people doing what they were TOLD not to do (and thus causing complaints, etc)?" - Revenge! None of the trouble makers KNEW or could see or hear anything except that they wern't getting what they EXPECTED. And, "ifn' I caint have 'er - aint NOBODY gonna have 'er!" And we can't forget the "do-gooders" who want to save us from ourselves. So, yes, there does seem to be some concerted effort by some group of misguided souls. The states, however, neglected to actually find out how the program worked or it's legal ramifications. ( Kill'em first. Ask questions later.) I continue to believe that, should BM choose to persue the D&C's in law, he will be vindicated.

IMHO (value= +/- $.02) - LOL!

Dreamseeker: There are those sanctimonious individuals who truly believe that a) they know better, b) they know more, and c) we need saving. I will not deny that there are predators out there, as well as scams and such. IMHO, some of these are doing it partly out of guilt, partly out of envy, and mostly out of bitterness. Then, as I have been shown, there are those who HAVE an ulterior motive and have been made promises (I don't know what) and given assurances that they will benefit by "uncovering this scam". I, too, am quite puzzled by those who keep voicing that we are delusional, and that we are beating a dead horse. Why are they here? Good question, and one we ask continually. If they have "proof" that it is a scam, provide it. Point is, they don't. Also, they don't believe it.

The main problem here, is that they are striving at all costs to be right. But it is more than that. Dead, there is no pay day, no "reward" except to gloat. Alive, they need to destroy it so that they can take credit and stand 'correct'. They continue to shout and twist our words because they can no longer afford to have this work or be real - it will demean their chosen position and cheapen their chosen existance.

I would not label them all as stupid; some are not. I would say that they need to reprioritize their lives first, then re-evaluate their own version of what is right and what is wrong. It is noble to assist your neighbor. It is a requirement of all to instruct and serve your neighbor. But you cannot, must not, impose your will on another - that is hubris, that is the sin. They have their own opinion, I have mine. I do not tell them what to think. I question their position; their facts. They are not interested in honest, open debate, as they cannot support their argument. Their argument brooks no flexibility or possiblility, and is not impartial. For them, there can only be one outcome, now. They have painted themselves into a corner. A closed mind is an empty mind. We did not shut the door, they did.

Remember this: Acts done out of compassion or charity are not done with malice, anger or poison. Can one truly help another by debasement and abuse? If that is their version of helping me, I guess I'd rather be on my own.

Arcturus

Why do we now have to have the words "caution, contents are HOT", on a cup of coffee? Usually, this is where the trolls and 'do-gooders' are born from.

Doesn't mean safty isn't important, but until they are liable for my bills, and the spending that I do, the words they speak should be a mute point.

An interesting saying I seen today, which will seem to fit as we move forward: "If you tempt a squirrel with a nut, be prepared to be bitten."

The above listed questions by Arcturus, raise more questions, but will be interesting to see what others say!

4D

Jog: You sound like a Walt Kelly reader! LOL

On the former, I was directing this specifically toward certain individuals. The reasons are not gray (or grey, as I have been prodded in the past), they would be black and white. It is either something I DID or something I DIDN'T do. Which is it? That is what I meant. They don't actually need to be answered here, just in member minds.

Good point, Taxman. With every respect for Bill Engvall, and all the credit, there are those who need to be told "Here's your sign!" These same individuals (tree hugging, do-good self appointed saviours) would lead much more productive and happy lives if they looked AT people rather than DOWN upon them.

Arcturus

Originally Posted by ArcturusI

(...) EW is correct. Back to business. He is asking (re-asking, actually) what is happening with some of the individuals. However, I have a twist on this:

Given what we have discussed so far, WHY do you think YOU would have left Pips? Look at this from your own perspective. What would have made you leave or stay?

Arc, do you mean: as an investor (knowing we actually can't leave then you probably mean: what would have made you get the money out as fast as possible) or as if we were in the place of those who left the company (and in this case: being GN or WW or ... whom you had in mind (or may we choose )? As I guess each from his/her position had different responsabilities and so different imaginable motives if (!) these weren't the reasons officially announced.

Originally Posted by ArcturusI

Next: Why would there be no official statement regarding [this situation] on the "public" record of the Central Bank, even though a minor blurb is given on the website?

Maybe Pips' importance is that of a minur blurb for them and/or they are bad communicators (which is as they are humans quite reasonable an explanation) so that blurb is already 'nice'. Or maybe there aren't yet enough members from all over the world calling and mailing them for info and an explanation ( sorry couldn't resist that ).

You're funny Hasse! Ex-employees, of course. As to the other, they mention some other investigations publicly, but no Pips........

Thank you Arcturus and all for your kind words. I invite your support through envisioning a positve outcome and prayers.

ArcturusI asked, Why would there be no official statement regarding [this situation] on the "public" record of the Central Bank, even though a minor blurb is given on the website?

Remember this - The longer the jury is out, the less likely a guilty verdict.

Longer a jury is out doesn't always mean a less likey of a guilty verdict. There are just too many factors for a jury to consider.

Originally Posted by Mike

Longer a jury is out doesn't always mean a less likey of a guilty verdict. There are just too many factors for a jury to consider.

ah.... is the glass half full.. or half empty ?


this is more revealing than than the jury's time frame.... imho:

"As to the other, they mention some other investigations publicly, but no Pips........"

sm
(my glass is more than half full... no doubt )