Sunday, 14 November 2010

IBOFB is calling everyone a liar

Typically of an inflexible cult apologist, Mr. Steadson is still trying to post his de facto bosses' reality-inverting propaganda on your Blog in which he insists that he alone represents the truth. The poor little lad asks us (in all innocence) to explain exactly where and when he has lied ? The short answer to his inane question is: every time he appeared on the Net in the reality-inverting guise of an 'Independent Amway Business Owner.'
In more specific terms, it is a true and accurate statement to say that Mr. David Steadson is a criminal propagandist for billionaire racketeers; for, without any supporting evidence, he has recently pretended that the Pokorny RICO lawsuit was groundless, and that it would have easily been dismissed had it gone to trial, but that 'Amway's' owners' attorneys persuaded their innocent clients that it would be cheaper and quicker to pay off the plaintiffs.
Self-evidently the unmasked 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw has libelled me by falsely accusing me of lying. However, he has also (indirectly) falsely accused Robert FitzPatrick of committing perjury in his declaration in support of the plaintiffs in the Pokorny RICO lawsuit.
David Brear (copyright 2010)


IBOFB said...

That's it, that's all you've got?


As for perjury - it's only perjury if you're lying. FitzPatrick actually believes his BS.

rocket said...

Obviously, David Steadson lives life by the adage, "It's not a lie if you believe it".

Nice one.

I am curious though, when did you become the official spokesman for Amway?

One could not realistically believe you are anything else, given the amount of time you spend on defending Amway.


Joecool said...

It's not like IBOFB is a pillar of honesty and truth. Ain't that right Mr. Steadson? :-)

IBOFB said...

I challenge again - David Brear, JoeCool aka Steve Nakamura, Shyam Sundar, and Rocket the anonymous coward - please provide a link to where I have lied

rocket said...

Retail sales rule.


Tex said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
corporate frauds watch said...

Thank-you, but no thank-you, for your latest polite comment Mr. Scott 'Tex' Johnson. You have previously been banned from Corporate Frauds Watch for posting puerile, abusive and libellous false affirmations, despite countless warnings. Unfortunately, as an example, this ban cannot, and will not, be lifted in the foreseeable future.

Joecool said...

Hmm, Mr Steadson said Quixtar Blog members granted him expert status and he also said he was an EDC. He also said Network 21 was accredited at a time when they weren't. All posted on the Quixtar blog for all to see. There are many many more examples. Too many to count.

IBOFB said...

That's all you've got joecool? Your dishonesty in claiming them as lies of mine has been dealt with ad nauseum.

Still, might be sightly better than rocket the coward, who simply makes stuff up.

Joecool said...

So you admit that you're dishonest? That's a first. :-)

rocket said...

Hey David, if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question.

I didn't make up the fact that you said upline sales to downline is considered a retail sale. The fact that you are now saying you didn't say that is yet another lie.

So now you have an instance of you lying right here in this thread! I'll let you think about that for a while as the irony sinks in.

You realize that your kid may read this some day and see that his dad is dishonest, right?

You should stop. You look foolish.

Or not. Your call I suppose.....

IBOFB said...

And again rocket the coward attempts his sophistry. Dishonest or stupid? One (or both) of the two.

He persists in (deliberately?) confusing Amway's retail sales rule (which excludes downline sales), and the legal definition of a retail sale (which is any sale to an end user).

rocket said...

First of all, you call me a coward because you don't know my identity. I will call you a coward because you don't allow free discussion on your blog. You are also a coward.

So aren't we just the cowardly pair?

Now in response to your pathetic attempt to salvage your retail sales argument:

Amway rules are what you must abide by as an Amway IBO.

There is no argument, your concern (and entire idea) is baseless. Amway retail sales rule (4.22) is what you as an IBO must abide by.

That tule is in there because Amway has a responsibility to ensure their IBO's are complying with the law.

You are wrong. And you lie about being wrong.

It's unfortunate.

What level you at David Steadson the coward? You could always prove how easy Amway is to do if you were to show your level

Grow up. And find yourself some semblance of a life. This Google hopping from site to site acting as an official spokesman for Amway, it's not good for you.

IBOFB said...

Free discussion is welcome on AmwayTalk and The Truth About Amway. Anyone interested in honest free discussion is welcome.

Internet trolls are not welcome, as they, by definition, are not interested in honest free discussion.

Now again, care to point out where I lied instead of pursuing your dishonest spin? In the discussion of downline sales as retail sales I'm referring to the legal definition, not the definition for the purpose of Amway's Rule 4.22. I have made that clear on many occassions, you continue to ignore this.

Amway's definition is pertinent for Amway's rules. They are not pertinent when discussing legal definitions of sales and, for example, taxes or indeed the legality of multilevel compensation plans. The fact you continue to try to confabulate the two says a great deal about you and your integrity.

rocket said...

"Amway's definition is pertinent for Amway's rules. "

And you are an Amway IBO. You are bound to comply as an IBO or else you subject yourself to sanctions from Amway. Don't IBO's need to follow the rules?

You are an Amway IBO. You are to comply with the rules.

That's that. Yet you persist.

Dude, I'm not a troll. I am aware of Amway. I participate in many Amway discussions. I don't have Google Alerts set up to follow any Amway discussion like you, and I HAVE left comments on your blog which you deleted. That was because you were getting taken to task and called on your BS, in my opinion.

Honest Free discussion as long as it's controlled by you. That's my experience. Which makes you just as cowardly as you claim I am.

Love the spin, and once again, I encourage you to go out and get yourself a life!

In the meantime, why not check with Amway to see if you are required to comply with their rules as an IBO, or if they are just suggestions?

I'll allow their answer to speak for itself.

Joecool said...

Free discussion my ass. I was banned from the truth about amway for pointing out that the "average income" did not include "inactive IBOS'. How's that for free discussion? I did not engage in rude behavior nor did I insult any readers there.

There's another IBOFB/David Steadson lie, that he welcomes free discussion.

rocket said...

That's 2 in this thread alone there Davey!

Happy now?

IBOFB said...

@rocketthecoward - so what? Or are we back to you implying that Amway rules somehow trump the law in discussing legal definitions?

Now it is me being the idiot ... this is you PROVING you are a troll and I'm letting you take me along for the ride. You have no interest in honest discussion, you keep simply obfuscating the actual discussion by inserting irrelevancies.

I'm done with it.

rocket said...

Fine be done with it.

Did you phone Amway and ask if you had to adhere to their rules?

You asked where you had lied. I've shown it.

So has Joecool.

Retail sales are referring to non IBO's. Period.

Sorry you don't like it, that's just reality.

Enjoy your day David! And stop with the Amway website hopping. It seems to be affecting your ability to rationalize things.

rocket said...

I also think you need to revisit the definition of a troll.

There is much more evidence out there supporting you being a troll than you seem willing to admit.

I challenge anyone out there in webland to google IBOFB + AMWAY

Then Google rocket + Amway

Let's see who has arrived uninvited to more conversations, IBOFB or me.

Again, I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

Joecool said...

Another thingy to note. IBOFB sayd we discussed his lies ad nauseum on the Qblog forum. We did. Most of IBOFB's defense was not that he didn't lie. He said he placed a smiley :-) somewhere on one of his posts. The ad nauseum is becuase it was still a lie.

I am also stating that IBOFB/David Steadson doesn't want free and honest discussion. As I said, he banned me from his site only for ppointing out that Amway's average income disregarded inactibe IBOs. Notice he chose to remain silent on that one?