« Smacked with the stupid stick | Main | Passport Memo From Bo Short »
October 29, 2003
The problem is...
By QBlog in
I hear a lot of Quixtar advocates dismiss any sort of negative opinions about the business by saying, "they just had bad uplines" or "they're bitter about not making money." Statements like that attempt to discredit the message by attacking the messenger. However, the advocates aren't alone in this practice. I've often heard similar types of attacks by self-proclaimed Quixtar critics. "Don't listen to her, she's just trying to rip you off" or "he doesn't care about you, he just wants to go Diamond."
I detest those types of character assaults because they attempt to remove focus from the issues and avoid answering the tough questions. And over the past few months I've discovered that a lot of the debate surrounding Quixtar is nothing more than dancing around the issues by name-calling, hurling empty accusations and good, old-fashioned character assaults. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
When we're honest, we can step back and separate the message from the messenger and judge that message on its own merits. Being open-minded doesn't come naturally so it takes a certain resolve to try to shelve our personal bias and understand exactly what someone else is saying, even if we may not immediately agree.
Would it make sense for us to ignore repeated warnings about the quality of our drinking water simply because we don't agree with the politics, social status or race of those issuing the warning? I would hope not. Intelligent people look past the personal differences and try to determine the validity of the claims. By the same token, would it make sense for us to attack an entire industry because a few bad apples have behaved criminally? Again, I would hope not.
The Quixtar debate is no different than any other debate where human emotions are involved. Those on both sides of the issue get upset and act irrationally. Some have every right to act in this manner and others just can't avoid foolish behavior. I don't pretend to be the force that will bring acceptance and understanding to the warring factions like some Quixtar Ghandi or MLK. I just hope that I can, in some small way, inject some rational thinking into what appears to be a predominantly irrational debate.
Comments
How is that camac? You're not making sense. How can the message be tied to the messenger in any situation? Your logic is severely flawed.
If a convicted rapist comes to you and says your house is on fire (which it is) do you say, "Well, you're a convicted rapist and not to be trusted. My house couldn't possibly be on fire because you are telling me it's on fire."
Of course not. You must judge the message on its own merits, regardless of the messenger. What you're trying to do is muddy the issue by injecting your own personal opinions and emotions. I don't care if a person was burned by an upline, that should not immediately discredit what they say about Quixtar. To say otherwise is being dishonest. Conversely, I should not immediately accept as truth what some Quixtar IBO says about the business just because he's never been burned and achieved some amount of success.
My frustration is that people, like yourself, try to discount opinions based on who is voicing those opinions and not on their own merits. This was done in the not-so-distant past of the United States. It was not uncommon to hear, "Don't listen to him, he's black" or "What does she know, she's a woman." How is that different than saying, "his opinions about Quixtar are worthless because he's been burned by his upline."
I suggest that you carefully examine your own bias and emotions surrounding this issue. It's not easy to separate emotions from this business but it is extremely freeing for those who do.
I'm done preaching.
Hey man, I am in no way saying to not take the advice of someone because of their character. Read my first post again. I'm saying that in Quixtar you're entering into a relationship with the giver of the message. That's much deeper trust. That's alot different than just accepting information from them and then never talking to them again.
After the rapist tells you the house is on fire, that's it. So who cares about their character. However if the rapist came to you and said "do you want to leave your kids in my daycare" it would be completely different because you are entering into a relationship where you MUST evaluate the character of the individual.
Quixtar is the same, you have to like your upline. If your upline leaves a bad taste in your mouth it's difficult to be objective.
I have not had the bad experiences others have. Does that make their information less valuable? NO.
All I am saying is that with another, better experience with a better upline they probably wouldn't be as hurt. It has nothing to do with the info they are bringing to the table. Why don't you try to cut down on the people (like Bill) that say "you will see, you will see" and assume ALL Quixtar people are corrupt. Look at the way people like djeternal are treated when they show up. Everyone say's "oh you're young" "oh you're inexperienced" "you'll see, they'll screw you over". What's up with that.
Blanket statements about Quixtar are my beef because it's a business based on relationships.
Sorry I hit post instead of preview....continued....
Blanket statements about Quixtar are my beef because it's a business based on relationships. And different relationships produce different results.
An example? My brother-in-laws upline are emeralds showed the plan to family X about 10 years ago. Family X said no and were quite negative about the business. Consequently family X's children where negative towards the emerald couple when they grew up.
Then, the emerald couple sponsored my bro, who was good friends with family X's daughter and her husband. The daughter just had a kid and my bro sold her some SA8 and prewash spray. The quality of relationship between my bro and daughter X was better than emerald couple and daughter X so therefore there was a different end result.
Different relationship. Different time. Different result. That's all I'm saying.
Camac,
You're still not fully grasping the point of what I'm saying. This isn't about relationships with messengers or messages or anything like that. It's about discussion on the issues, which some people seem unable to do.
I'll try to break it down so you can understand:
Saying that "they're just bitter about Quixtar because they got burned by an upline" is just as bad as saying "you'll see, they'll screw you over."
The knife cuts both ways. Until we recognize this and at least attempt to be honest about it, we'll continue to see this debate degenerate into meaningless squabbling.
Hey, you two - allow me to take the middle ground on this issue, since I'm a fresh IBO who's not yet been successful or burned by the upline. Camac, my take on Qblog's point is that even if the relationship is swell (like you & the Bro), you MUST do two things: find outside info like you find here, and challenge your upline or recruiter with that info. Otherwise, you're setting your own trap. Evaluate the Company and Opportunity on Dollars & Sense, Hours and Miles. Don't allow a lame STP or fabulous Convention to make the difference. My first Quixtar STP was super-lame, and I've received almost 40 emails in two days from my upline, relating how all-important and valuable last weekend's Convention was. When's the last time your superior at work sent you an email (nevermind 40!) extolling the virtues of the shindig they just held for you? Especially if YOU DIDN'T GO!?!
My sponsor is (as far as I can tell!) a stand-up guy who has yet to tell me a lie. He's offered more than a few chances for me to "shoot some holes" in the plan or it's suitability for me & my family.
However . . . . . he's affiliated with the "Global Business Owner's Alliance" which has it's own "Business Development Plan". Now, while this has often been presented (at every meeting, function, etc.) as the best "System for Success" since the group is growing much faster than Quixtar (year-over-year), the catchy phrase on the opportunity brochure "Multiple Streams of Ongoing Income" has only been vaguly explained. In fact, I had to find out what it really meant by coming to places like THIS. (Thanks again, Qblog).
Here's my point: When some new prospect or recruit sees "Multiple Streams of Ongoing Income" in conjuction with The Plan, it might look (as it did to me) that the streams represented legs or downlines, retailing their hearts out. I now understand that the "Multiple" refers to Quixtar income, BSM income, and BDP income.
Now, as I look over all my fancy new "Tools", many of which I found on my own, I'm left to ponder, "is this the "opportunity" that was pitched in the coffee shop?" Do I dream of heading a Tools empire? No. And, no.
Finally, let me sum this ramble up by saying that my messenger seems genuinely interested in my success. But his messages have been slow to unfurl when the subject goes past Quixtar and on to Tools income. That's not cool. Even if I don't have a specific problem with Kingpins running a tools empire (I do), I DO have a problem with withholding information until someone else thinks it's a good time to "share it".
I'll post here again after I've directly leveled the "Multiple Streams" questions to him & the Upline. Then we'll see if the 'relationship' we have so quickly developed remains; especially if I decide to pass on the "opportunity".
Thanks,
Chris
I agree Q, the only problem is...:D
with Quixtar the message is inextricably tied up in the messenger. With Quixtar are entering into a relationship with the person selling you the "plan" and therefore the messenger is very important when evaluating the message.
Quixtar is not like normal retail where if you go into a store and don't like the sales guy you don't have to deal with them ever again. Even if you come back to the same store you can deek past the guy, get your item and leave. With Quixtar you have to deal with that upline and if they are jerks it can seriously impair your desire to objectively check the thing out.
It's like Christianity. If your first exposure to the gospel is some cheesy TV evangelist you may have more of a hard time taking the claims of Jesus seriously.
I agree we should not bash each others character, wether we are advocates or critics, however when evaluating the Quixtar opportunity "the messenger" that STP'd you is very important.
Posted by: camac | October 30, 2003 9:49 AM