« $12 Million = Record Day | Main | Quixtar Backbone Project »
September 2, 2004
Dwighty Loves Rush Limbaugh
By QBlog in Web Initiative
I just got off the phone with Dwighty (of The Dwighty Show) and briefly talked to him about Hurricane Frances (he lives in Florida) and the latest post by QRush. The reason I mentioned the post (titled Quixtar, Bo Short, Scott Larsen & Homosexual Psychology?) to Dwighty is because QRush quotes his blog (IBlogO, the last "O" is capitalized) as part of some effort to question Larsen's sexuality.
While Dwighty has yet to read Qrush's post (he was fleeing the danger of the Hurricane) I feel it's fair to say that he does not appreciate QRush using his post to support any allegations about Larsen's sexuality. In fact, Dwighty (who stands by his criticisms of Larsen) does not believe he's gay nor that it really matters if he were.
Dwighty went on to say that QRush never made any attempt to contact him about Larsen and that he's had no communication with him about anything. He also made it clear that he's never met Scott Larsen and has only exchanged "maybe a couple" of emails with him in the past. QRush's post leaves the impression that Dwighty intimately knows Larsen ("has had first person contact") which simply isn't true. But rather than research the matter, QRush rushed to assumptions.
Dwighty continued, saying that he doesn't approve of QRush's methods and was especially critical of the way he compares himself to Rush Limbaugh. You see, Dwighty is an avid Limbaugh fan and listens to him daily. He's been a Rush 24/7 subscriber for years and balked at the notion that QRush even remotely resembles the great Maha Rushie!
"QRush is entirely not in the character of Rush Limbaugh. He does not reflect my impression of Rush at all."Typical Quixtar Advocate?
It is my belief that QRush does NOT represent the typical IBO or Quixtar Advocate. People like Dwighty might disagree with some of the Quixtar Critics, and may even disapprove of their actions, but their integrity demands that they speak out against the viciousness displayed by QRush and his kind. I know such IBOs. They're good, honest, hardworking men and women who love their God, their families and their country. It's those IBOs who are appalled at the despicable character assassination being waged by QRush. They understand that the tone set by people like QRush erodes the Quixtar reputation and provides their critics with both ammunition and motivation.
After all, Quixtar is a diverse family with many different beliefs, political affiliations, races and ethnicities. Isn't that why the Right To Differ is such an important policy? It enables IBOs to "invite all people to participate in this great business, no matter their background." Where exactly does QRush and his homosexual-obsessed blog fit in with that policy? Do you have an answer? Does Quixtar?
Comments
Quite the article Qblog, I do hope for the best with Dwighty's evasion of the hurricane.
It doesn't surprise me that Qrush would lie about talking to Dwighty, can't wait for Dwighty to be available to defend his "non-association" with Qrush. Just goes to add to the doubt of Qrush's other emails.
And when is Qrush going get someone to proofread his articles for grammer and punctuation....he makes hard-core right-wing fundamentalist Christian conservative Republicans look bad.
Perhaps this is grounds for some form of legal action, at least civil based on defamation? It is my humble opinion, based on some of Qrush’s topics, that he is not a lone wolf and may in fact be some form of ‘527' for a LOS - which I am sure everyone would like to know for sure and probably has pretty deep pockets. I may have to recant my previous assertions that Quixtar doesn’t pay off!
Seems only fair - every time Scott or even Qblog post an apparently public document or reference, lawyers are on the phone with the ‘cease and desist or else...’
Any opinions? Perhaps a class action suit?
I think that we all need to take qblog's suggestion and start more blogs of our own. The more opinion that's out there the greater the voice against this yahoo.
How interesting. I’m an ibo and find that qrush has exposed a lot of stuff about the motives of aniti quixtar people. I appreciate getting to read the other side. Seems the people that hate quixtar have a problem with qrush asking questions. It also seems that you don’t want anyone out there expressing a different opinion. Doesn’t qrush have the right to have a different opinion than yours? Our constitution says he does.
I hope you guys continue to work hard to censor everything you find that is pro quixtar. This exposes the fact that you really don’t want other opinions out there except your own, and probably gives energy to the pro quixtar people.
I don’t know that Scott Larsen is gay nor do I care. But I think qrush has the right to ask the question. It may have something to do with Scott’s motives and it may not. Scott Larsen is a public figure so he doesn’t have the same privacy rights as others. Of course, Scott probably knows this. He likes to review law cases. He should take a look at The People vs. Larry Flynt. Larry Flynt roasted Jerry Falwell, accusing him of all kinds of gay acts. Larry prevailed, by the way.
A class action law suit? Yes. That’s an excellent idea. A bunch of ibos should get together and sue all of you anti quixtar guys. If you have done or said things that are incorrect about our business, and I believe you have, we should be able to get damages awarded to us. I’ll participate.
IBO,
I don't condone censorship nor am I asking for censorship. I believe America should welcome a diversity of opinions no matter how vicious they may be (as long as they are within the law of course).
However, that does not prohibit others from speaking out and expressing THEIR opinions about such speech. My only point with my post is that QRush's methods and tactics are vicious, arguably libelous and personal. And on the personal level is where a distinction must be made.
Fallwell is and was a public figure. Scott Larsen is not. While you may disagree, Larsen does not pass the legal test for public figures. He was never elected, never ran for public office, has never been on tv, radio or in a newspaper (to my knowledge) and he's never given public speeches. So, the standard for what is acceptable to say about Larsen is a little different than what's acceptable to say about Fallwell.
Secondly, I agree that QRush has a right to offer his opinions and that's exactly what I've done on my blog but he's taken it beyond opinons by:
1. Attacking Larsen's sexuality
2. Accusing Larsen of illegal acts (physically threatening people)
3. Asking for personal information about me (my friends, my mob, my dreams)
4. Asking for the address of Bo Short's parents
5. Paying for Google ads to promote his hate speech
Again, I'm not saying he's doing anything illegal (though he may be with regards to libel) but I'm asking if IBOs feel that he is the voice that should be representing them? Do you support his methods or his attacks? That's a simple question. Sure, let's ask tough questions about our critics and let's even explore their motivations but can't that be done in a respectable way without waging a personal assault.
Read through my blog very carefully. You'll not find a single example where I've attacked an individual in the manner that QRush has exhibited. Why is such viciousness necessary? Wouldn't it better serve IBOs to elevate the dialogue rather than pull it down to the depths of QRush? That's all I'm saying.
I appreciate your input but please understand what it is I'm trying to do here. I'm not attacking any IBOs (nor have I ever) but I'm trying to help them by asking tough questions, raising important issues, sharing my perceptions and allowing a healthy dialogue to continue between all perspectives. Contrast that to QRush's smear campaign and I think you'll better understand what's going on.
Agree with Qblog here. The issue is not censorship, it's responsibility. The dialogue should be intelligent and responsible. I feel for the IBO's if this guy is to be their voice. I'd feel even worse for them if it were revealed that he is a high pin within the Quixtar organization.
Although I disagreed with a lot of Scott Larsen's conclusions and articles, I respect them. He did his best to present supporting data.
QRush, on the other hand, got nothing but rantings and ravings. Free speech give him the right to be insulting and vicious, even if I wish him to shut up.
However, I believe he crossed the legal line when he made disparaging statements without regard to facts and to incite what I considered to be harassment. That's crossing the moral line, too.
Just for the record, I'm not a homosexual, and everything Qrush has said about this topic is false.
I have told him so and have asked him to remove the page but he won't. I even asked him to send me the supposed mails he has "proving" this strange behaviour he states that took place. After all if the story is true, I would already know the identity of my secret lover, right?
Qrush can't handle the slightest bit of logic.
Scott,
I'm sure I speak for many when I say there's no need to debunk Qrush's allegations (his character alone does it on its own). But good on you, Scott for speaking up.
By the way, I've taken Qblog up on his suggestion to his readers to start their own blogs. I hope he doesn't mind one shameless plug for it. I'm calling it 'sinking in quixand' and the address is:
www.sinkinginquixand.blogspot.com
Qbog – I really didn’t want to get into a qrush debate here. I believe in qrush’s right to his opinion and his right to ask questions and to point out that censorship of pro quixtar information exists.
Regarding your point about Scott Larsen not being a public figure simply because his fame is (only) internet-based – I strongly disagree. Just a few points here. First, being a journalist, you certainly have heard of Matt Drudge and The Drudge Report. His website launched him into the public eye and fame. Would you agree? I would call him a public figure. And secondly, it seems you are being inconsistent. You state that Scott Larsen is not a public figure because “He was never elected, never ran for public office, has never been on tv, radio or in a newspaper (to my knowledge) and he's never given public speeches.” But then in your post “Joe Trippi Gets It,” you state, “Trippi then moves beyond the political realm and explains how the Internet is quickly becoming the world's primary source of information." And based on the title of your post, I would say that you agree with Trippi. So, I say you are being inconstant. I liked that post and agree with you here, by the way. But using the information you have provided, I think it could be successfully argued that being outspoken on the internet has positioned Scott Larsen as a public figure. After all, he has been busy at this for 6 or 8 years and says he has “The Web's largest public collection of Quixtar and Amway information.” Not a public figure? You are in a minority if you believe that.
On another point, Scott Larsen has personally singled out and attacked individuals on his website but I notice he is not called out or reprimanded for this behavior by you or anyone else. Why is this, yet you reprimand qrush for his attacks? I’ll bet all the money I have, which is not much, that if qrush was anti quixtar, neither you nor any of the other anti quixtar folks would be saying anything, and I’ll also bet that if Larson was pro quixtar he would be a dirty sob in all of your minds. How has Larson personally attacked individuals? You don’t have to look far or long to see his attacks on Dean Kosage, Bill Britt, and Larsen’s “Hall of Shame.”
Qblog – just a few additional points I decided to express…
And take a look at the website qrushed (not to be confused with qrush). Where are all the voices out there claiming this guy has crossed the line? Talk about negative attacks. He has placed bounties on people, is claiming he has photos of Billy Florence that would embarrass him, called lots of people fags and other names, writes in a very vulgar way, etc. Is he the new voice of the anti quixtar group? Is he the guy you want representing your group? If no, you should say something against him. Your silence suggests support.
And on another point, why aren’t you guys attacking JoeUser.com (gideon-macleish.joeuser.com)? Look what is said about Fred Harteis on this community board: “Free por*& Fred Harteis free por$# is selling well. Fred Harteis likes pus(*& and co$# and blo)*^$# and fis%$#@. Fred Harteis will win the election. Fred Harteis fuc(* Brittany Spears and J-Lo and Madonna. Fred Harteis has huge ti%$. Fred Harteis is developing %$%#^&&*^%$$#. Fred Harteis will take &^%$. Fred Harteis is (*&^%%. So, how is our Fred Harteis google bomb doing?” I suppose you believe this behavior is fair play? I believe Fred Harteis to be a successful businessman of good integrity. Talk about a smear campaign.
In the end, it will come down to this. As background, a few anti quixtar folks decided to do whatever they could via the internet to defame quixtar. The players all have personal reasons that are well known to many. Quixtar and pro quixtar folks didn’t do much or say much to combat this negative story. Partly they were too busy building their businesses and partly they were just naive. Now it appears the pro quixtar folks have had their fill and are doing something about it. And how will it play out? There aren’t going to be any law suits from the anti quixtar folks. They can’t sling mud and then make a legal argument that someone else is slinging mud. And there is the added complication of the expense of a legal battle and the burden of defining harm. I could go on here but not now. Anyway, I believe qrush and others out there will go away (qrush says so) if and only if the anti quixtar antics, disinformation and personal attacks stop.
I have to agree with A...we are losing our focus and adding fuel to the fire by giving this guy free advertisement and space on this site.
By feeling the need to defend Scott, Eric or the other critics we are telling Qrush and others that we feel as if he has a leg to stand on. If we ignore him he will move into oblivion soon enough.
In addition, I find the site of Qrushed more awful than Qrush's Blog. I was disgusted by what I found at the Qrushed blog and embarrassed that someone who claims to be for freedom of speech and thinking Americans would start that site.
Why don’t we get back to what matters…our discussion of Quixtar and if it is a viable option for creating income.
- Soobonn
Soobonn, you're forgetting one important fact. QRush is paying for ads on Google so he won't just "move into oblivion." I think it's that fact that sort of changed my perspective of his blog.
By the way, I just spoke to Dwighty again and learned of his post sort of responding to this post. Check out IBlogO.
Anyway, Dwighty had some good things to say on the phone and it got me thinking about this issue in a new perspective. I may post about it soon... or not. Just know that maybe there is something to just simply ignoring him and moving on. I just keep thinking of Richard Jewel and how his reputation was ruined by some false assumptions and allegations and it sort of scares me to be honest.
Also, how would you feel if you saw your name on QRush's Web site asking for personal info (friends, job, dreams, etc.) and there was already a history of very personal and vicisious attacks on others?
Lastly, I don't support Qrushed either. If anything, I wish his blog would get shut down too.
I hope he spends tons on advertising, serves him right. Who cares that he has decided to spend his money on ads that may or may not work? I'm in the same boat about his "ads" as I am about people naive enough to buy "tools" for their business when they can't cover their basic utility bills.
When it comes down to it...Don't we have faith in each other enough that people will read his site and see what he is? Anyone who is getting sucked in by his dribble is usually the person who continues to lose money year after year on the system hoping one day something magical will happen and they'll be wealthy.
I look forward to hearing your take on ignoring Qrush and Qrushed...It's the only way to go.
- Soobonn
The difference with Scott's wall of shame and Qrush's allegations of Scott, is that Scott actually backed it up with fact (court docs, statements, pdf's, etc.). What has Qrush given other than his ramblings?
an ibo writes:
"qrush has exposed a lot of stuff about the motives of aniti quixtar people."
Really? What has he exposed? Please be specific. "Bo Short bought a leg" can hardly be considered an expose', since the guy already said he did (and no, I'm not in Passport, and I don't know how much credibility to lend a guy who left one mlm just start a new one, regardless of his reasons). What other truthful, VERFIABLE, and previously unknown information (not opnion, FACT) has qrush published?
an ibo writes:
"I hope you guys continue to work hard to censor everything you find that is pro quixtar. This exposes the fact that you really don’t want other opinions out there except your own, and probably gives energy to the pro quixtar people."
How have any anti-quixtar individuals or entities attempted to censor you or anybody else? Again, please be specific. "I know a guy who's brother-in-law's best friend's mother's cousin was harrassed" does not count.
So far, most of the censorship seems to be coming from various Quixtar entities. Specifically (see, I'm going to provide specifics to back up my claim, that's how you play this game), TOD suing Mr. Larsen, and issuing subpeonas to others, including our host here. Then there's the infamous Sidney Schwartz, whose site was effectively silenced, apparently when he could no longer pay attorneys to combat Amway in court. Then there were the threats against the site owners who published the "Blakely report" (you shoudl read that, comparing AMOs to the mafia, written by a law professor who helped draft the RICO laws).
Who's trying to censor whom?
in ibo writes:
"I don’t know that Scott Larsen is gay nor do I care. But I think qrush has the right to ask the question. It may have something to do with Scott’s motives and it may not."
Using that logic, would Bill Britt's alleged inablity to keep his pants zipped and hands to himself "have something to do with his motives"? If gayness proves instablity (and I'm not arguing whether it does or not, this is your logic), then what does infidelity, PUBLICLY RAILING against infidelity and infidels while prvately committing it, violence or threats of violence (see the 9-1-1 reports), prove? Your logic.
an ibo writes:
"A class action law suit? Yes. That’s an excellent idea. A bunch of ibos should get together and sue all of you anti quixtar guys. If you have done or said things that are incorrect about our business, and I believe you have, we should be able to get damages awarded to us. "
Saying something incorrect about your business is hardly a tortious offense. Even if it were, financial awards are based on the loss caused by the tortious offense. How can anybody be costing you anything when you're not making anything? $115 a month BEFORE EXPENSES? That's a loss. If you are prevented from losing any more money, I guess you'd owe the defendants money.
I have to agree with 'a' on one point: I did have the misfortune of venturing upon the 'qrushed' site, and it was appalling. Not only is it offensive and disgusting, it's also highly embarrassing. I hate to think that I share any kind of opinion with this guy. Just like I'd hope that the pro-Quixtar camp would do all they can to distance themselves from qrush.
a said -
"In the end, it will come down to this. As background, a few anti quixtar folks decided to do whatever they could via the internet to defame quixtar. The players all have personal reasons that are well known to many. Quixtar and pro quixtar folks didn’t do much or say much to combat this negative story. Partly they were too busy building their businesses and partly they were just naive. Now it appears the pro quixtar folks have had their fill and are doing something about it. And how will it play out? There aren’t going to be any law suits from the anti quixtar folks. They can’t sling mud and then make a legal argument that someone else is slinging mud. And there is the added complication of the expense of a legal battle and the burden of defining harm. I could go on here but not now. Anyway, I believe qrush and others out there will go away (qrush says so) if and only if the anti quixtar antics, disinformation and personal attacks stop."
AmQuix has had a monopoly of disinformation for nearly 40 years. At last, those with an opposing view to the propaganda have an outlet to share THEIR experiences. What we are seeing is that there are quite a few more people coming forward to tell THEIR story. I was one of these people who worked to build a business in AmQuix for 5 years. I fell into lockstep at the urging of every leader that graced the stages. I listened to tape after tape after tape and was nearly convinced that I was some sort of sub-human for "failing" to "let" the system work for me. To suggest that somehow my personal experience and my ability to tell MY story is mud-slinging borders on an insult. And as far as a legal battle, those days are coming. There are too many eyes watching this situation to be without some repercussions. The house that Britt built will be the first to fall. Not even Markerman will be able to save the rest of that sorry lot.
People in A/Q can't handle the "truth".If all the Ibo's would get out and show the plan 8 days a week they wouldn't have to read these blogs.Their volume would be so great there couldn't be nothing bad said about them.But it don't work and they won't do it so they have to come here and blame people with experience who know it don't work and blame us.The answer is in the seats as your upline would say.
Dwighty,
I hope you are safe and that the hurricane hasn't done too much damage to your home. Take care.
Lisa
I googled this page and wanted to respond to the poster who asked why the blogger on this site wasn't attacking JoeUser. First, let me state that I am a blogger ON JoeUser, and that my views do not reflect those of Stardock, Inc, or its affiliates, who host the joeuser site.
That being said, the article in question was a tongue in cheek response to a blog spamming run by Quixtar business owners. While I have no personal feelings for or against Quixtar, I, along with several others, watched as Quixtar business owners abused the blogs repeatedly. They would post copy/paste articles with comments disabled to EVERY forum, and they would post in sufficient quantity as to drop every article we had posted out of the "recent articles" forum. This seriously hurt traffic to the blogs that I and several others work hard to produce, and was, in my opinion, a poor business practice.
As these bloggers disabled articles, the only way to grab their attention was to post articles that they would virtually be forced to read; the best way to do that, in my opinion, was to cause an article to rank high in the google search results, and thus, the google bomb was born. While I admit some of the comments did go over the top, it was basically a tension breaker for those of us who had been hurt by the irresponsible practices of one or two of your affiliates.
In the end, the experiment worked. The article ranked as high as fourth on search returns for "Fred Harteis", and the bloggers in question seemed to get the message. While they still post blogs from time to time, it is not to the disruption of the blogging community (I have NO problem with someone using their blog for commercial purposes; they are, after all, simply attempting to earn a living).
If you are a regular reader of my blog, you will note that I actually frequently post tongue in cheek articles of a similar nature and this is hardly out of character. I apologize if anyone was offended, but please understand the spirit in which it was done.
I'm so glad that you've written about this. I am, for sure, a quixtar critic. I understand that there are opinions that differ from mine. I’m willing to put my experience and logic to the test against those of differing opinions. My hope is that the best ideas will win out, even if that means I am wrong.
Qrush, however, has crossed the line into disgusting, hateful, embarrassing, rhetoric. If I were still an active IBO, I would be embarrassed and saddened that someone who agreed with me wrote such things. He is behaving like a child who cannot get what they want or who cannot get anyone to pay attention to them.
Could it be that the kingpins are really that scared they will lose their fame and fortune that they will do anything, like creating Qrush, to retain it? The kingpins seem to be behaving like cornered animals trying desperately to find a way out of a mess of their own creation.
The most important test of person’s character is what they do when no one is looking. In this case, the most import test of Diamond’s character in Quixtar is what they will say when they are hiding behind a disguise by the name of Qrush.
Posted by: Kendall | September 3, 2004 12:30 AM