Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 18, 2007 04:05 PM
antonmax, has QN given any information about the creator of the biodisc? Where did he get his Dr title, to which research organisation is he affiliated etc.? Just like the fake doctor claims to be a doctor, if the potential victim does not ask for these type of information, he won't be able to diffe...rentiate between fake and real.
I do not know which credit card companies have approached you but if there are such companies purposely misleading people into taking a contract and then later on imposing conditions, then those are unethical companies and I would personally not open an account with them. My bank was very clear with the conditions of contract with me so if someone approaches you without making those clear, then better not sign up.
By stating 'money back', it's like you are stating that the object is not value for money. If you really believe that the object is worth whatever you paid for it, then there won't be a question of 'money back' but of making 'more money'.
haha. I still think that criticising idnames and idpics is kind of a low blow. They were probably calling their upliners those names not you personally.
Ok I am spending too much time on this blog. Got to work, so am going to disappear for a while unless anyone raises a very interesting issue not yet already raised in the QN blogs. Interesting discussions everyone. Don't take any comments or reviews as a personal attacts and don't forget that sharing of ideas and opinions are very important.Read More
Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 18, 2007 03:11 PM
ramgoolam, I could not find a better example of why people join QN. But this is the way most pyramid schemes work: by making recruiters convince their friends and families who recruit other friends. Since they are your friends, you tend to do what they say.
antonmax, good point. QN gives a produc...t and therefore is different from bank robbers who blatently take money that do not belong to them. However, fake doctors also give some kind of products to their patients: prescription, advice, some even go and produce some home made medicine. So from my point of view, they are as unethical as each other.
No I have never been approached by a credit card person. I am the one who went to the bank to apply for one and since this is a service provided by my bank, and that it does not require me to recuit new credit card members to get money, I don't see what the problem is with credit cards!
No I do not make statements with a view to mislead people. I give my opinion, people read and make up their own mind. Just like ramgoolam pointed out, you gave your opinion on amitflu's idname, people read and then determine whether he really got the flu! By your logic, you are misleading people to base judgement on an idname, so you are the one who is biased and prejudiced and getting personal with idnames.
Once again, it is not the fact that you can get some money from QN that is unethical, is the way you get it. No one can predict when QN will stop, maybe a couple of months or years but when it stops, that will be the bottom line and those people won't get their money back. And I am glad that you agree with the phrase 'money back' because it demonstrate that you do not feel that the product received compensates for the 'investment' made. Else the won't be a question of 'money back' but of getting 'more money'.
Couldn't agree more with your stand. You state your opinions, people read and make up their own minds. And avoid being biased towards idnames and idpics.Read More
Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 17, 2007 11:57 PM
Sorry antonmax, I do not get your logic.
The first one is a typo and therefore does not count in your argument.
Crediting myself? For what?
I do not see why using 3 examples is equivalent to misleading others and you still haven't told me the difference between them nor why the comments are bias ...and prejudiced.
And let me tell you something. If you can rationally explain to me the difference between the 3 examples, who knows, maybe you will be able to convince me that there is a difference between them!
Lastly, you cannot have talked to bottom liners because quest.net is still active = it has not reached the bottom line yet! People who are entering are still hoping to get money. You probably mean that you have talked to downliners or people at the bottom of the pyramid but definitely can't be the end line.
Sure, show me the difference between the 3 examples (in a clear logical way and without getting angry) and I might withdraw my statement. Afterall, the purpose of mouthshut is to promote reviews and discussions.Read More
Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 17, 2007 11:31 PM
Autonmax, when did I ever claim to make money from writing comments?
Also can you please explain why you believe that I am stating half truths?
Finally, can you please explain why you believe that I am willingly misleading others?
When I claim that people who recruit for quest.net (so as to make... money) knowing fully well that the bottom liners won't get their money back (how pyramid schemes work is famous enough), I believe that I have explained the logic behind my arguments. On the other hand, you have not explained anything behind your arguments.
Oh and please do not reask me the questions which I am asking but explain your logic.Read More
Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 17, 2007 09:09 PM
Quest.net logic: I worked hard into convincing people to join and give money willingly = I deserve the money
Fake doctors logic: I worked hard into convincing people to believe me and give me money willingly = I deserve the money
Thieves logic: I worked hard into designing a plan to rob the bank... and invested in thieving equipment = I deserve the money
If someone is willingly working hard to take money from others knowing that the bottom liners will suffer, then what's the difference between the 3 categories?Read More
Commented on own review
Sep 17, 2007 09:00 PM
bluediamonds, by your logic: hardworking quest.net members who take money from those who are further down the line deserve the money as much as a fake doctor who puts in a lot of effort into tricking people into giving him money. On the other hand, lazy quest.net members do not deserve any money as ...much as a fake doctor who sits around and does not put in a lot of effort into tricking people. Great sense of ethics!
As I already stated, it is not the fact that you put in a lot of effort which is unethical, it is the way you get the money i.e. by taking it from others knowing that the bottom of the pyramid will suffer.Read More
Commented on sapphires's review
Sep 12, 2007 09:38 PM
I don't agree with the argument that hard work should always be compensated with money. By this agument, it's like implying that a hard working bank robber also deserves 'earning' the stolen money since the bank robber put a lot of effort in getting the money. It depends on the type of work and on h...ow the money is generated. If you have a genuine hard working (and qualified) doctor selling his services, then true that person deserves the money. However, if you have a fake doctor who put in a lot of effort in acting and in disguising his lack of skill, then the latter definitely does not deserve the money!Read More
Commented on own review
Sep 01, 2007 07:28 PM
I don't think that Microsoft is endorsing quest.net. I think that it's just that quest.net is using a the customer reference program created by Microsoft.... It's like the millions of people using Windows and getting approval from Microsoft for using its product. But then Microsoft doesn't know what... they actually use the product for (legitimate stuff, planning a roberry, porn, predating on small children via the internet etc.). So to me it looks that it's quest.net which has endorsed Microsoft's product, not the other way round.
Where did you get the information that quest.net is affiliated to Vatican City, FIFA, United Nation? Is that something that quest.net claims or is it similar to the Microsoft case?
As for the Amezcua biodisk, it would be good if quest.net could provide some information on Dr Ian Lyon e.g. his CV, organisation for which he works, where he got his Dr title etc. Usually, genuine researchers affiliated to genuine organisations have some of those information available on an official webpage (they don't need to create it themselves, any genuine organisation like to display the names and contact information of their prestigious staff especially a research organisation which tends to depend a lot on external funding), together with a list of publications, inventions and awards that they have won.Read More
Commented on own review
Aug 28, 2007 11:20 PM
Sure, the creators of any pyramid scheme who are trying to get money out of people are undoubtly crooks who deserve to be sued. But lets keep in mind that the majority eventually involved in the scheme are people who got tricked into thinking that the business is genuine... Afterall most of those sc...hemes manage to gather its victims by using your close friends and family members as recruiters. The latter get tricked into the scheme, make some money, get further convinced that it is a genuine business (without realising that they are just taking money from the bottom liners), and then encourage you into the scheme. Now, they are your close friends and relatives, so you trust them and eventually get sucked into the scheme... unless if you were lucky enough to look for quest.net reviews on the internet and come across this discussion board! :)Read More
Commented on Whats_Your_Quest's review
Aug 27, 2007 03:17 PM
If quest.net were a genuine business, why is it that I cannot buy the products online but need a RECOMMENDATION. So quest.net main way of getting money is not via sales but by getting more people to enter the scheme so it is a pyramid scheme! The 'products' offered are just disguises / tokens given ...so as to disguise the pyramid as a business and try to slip past the law even though it is illegal in certain countries like Sri Lanka. Proves that people are not so stupid afterall! Thieving stragety adapts to law and eventually the law catches up and adapts to the new thieving strategies!
People do not enter the scheme to buy the goods but to make money on the back of others. Quest.net profits mainly comes from transfers of money NOT from the 'sale' of the products which are used as a disguise for membership entrance fee.
Of course not a studio. They might have really been to one of the small schools and taken pictures there! Since the best way of disguising it into a business is to create fake goods, why not give some small 'charity' and make gullible people give even more money for 'charity' purposes!
You are very selective in answering questions. Why not reply to amitflu's question about Balance sheet? Where are the company reports? Show us where else those products are sold? There is always a secondary market for everything. On ebay you find every possible product sold second hand but not quest.net's products!
You are definitely one of the top liners of quest.net. One of those people who desperately try to disguise the pyramid as a business. So trying to reason with you is impossible. I only see a desperate attempt for your to promote the pyramid and make more money. Oh and by the way, there is NO WAY that the whole population would ever enter the scheme. You won't be able to trick all of us!Read More
Commented on Whats_Your_Quest's review
Aug 25, 2007 11:05 PM
I am shocked at the extent to which Quest.net will go to get money out of people! This is definitely high class strategic thieving! Ok lets not get too excited, and lets try some logical thinking:
1. Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding Quest.net's marketing strategy is to get as ma...ny people to enter the scheme and they do so by 'buying' a coin or jewel (by the way we still do not have evidence about whether the resale value would be the same as quest.net's fee). Then you can get more money if you incite other people to join.
2. The reason why I believe that this scheme is equivalent to thieving is because thieves take money from people (illegitimate TRANSFER of wealth / assets) without giving anything of similar value back. On the other hand, businesses like Virgin sell a genuine product and therefore get money from people (legitimate EXCHANGE of wealth / assets).
3. So the question goes back to is the coin or jewel really worth quest.net's fee? And do people get incited to enter quest.net because they are mainly interested in acquiring the coin / jewel? If no, then it's no different from thieving.
4. I personally think that the 'sale' of the coin / jewel is only a means of disguising the scheme under the veil of legality. Also, I said high class strategic thieving because they went to the extent of creating a two page charity webpage to make people believe that they are a 'proper ethical business'. Afterall, they are using the 'sale' of coin or jewel as a way to disguise the 'business' as a legal one.
5. Now, the main way to get money is to make more people sign up. But when people stop signing up, won't you stop getting money? What happens to the last round of people who had just signed up? Doesn't that mean that they won't get any money at all? That makes the scheme equivalent to a pyramid scheme.
What do you think?Read More
Commented on own review
Aug 24, 2007 03:00 PM
Krisgopala, You raise a very important issue: the top liners are taking risks, working hard and have got good (I guess marketing) skills, so they deserve the money.... Now, let me use an analogy: bank robbers take risks (they can get caught), they work hard (design a methodical plan, get the equipme...nt etc.) and have good skills (strategic planning and maybe physical endurance).... so is thieving ethical?
It is not the fact that you work had to get money that is unethical it is the way you get the money that is unethical i.e. by taking it from others.
The good news is that I do NOT believe that ALL members of quest.net are unethical. I don't think that those like your friends or relatives who are not trying to get other members to sign up (with a view to get their money) and who genuinely believe that the coins and cruises are worth their investment, are crooks but just uninformed victims who are unknowlingly helping the crooks working a few lines above them.
But if you work hard to knowingly take money from people, knowing perfectly well that the scheme is not sustainable and that those at the bottom of the pyramid will suffer, well that is unethical and that is a 'business' no different from strategic thieving. The creators of the scheme know that it is a complicated one and that people are not far-sighted enough to think about how the money is being transferred or that the bottom line would suffer.
One last thing, I did not enter the scheme exactly because I don't feel comfortable taking from others.
Social service: you are right. If quest.net is illegal in one country hopefully the other countries will follow.
benedictkong22: well i do hope that the 'fighters' do not get quiet or it will kill the purpose of the blog. :) It is only via good and civilised arguments that one would be able to understand more about pyramids, get the information out there and then form an informed opinion.Read More
Commented on Whats_Your_Quest's review
Aug 23, 2007 08:25 PM
Concerning the backing up of comments which you want, can you back up your own statements and explain how
'amount of wealth that will
be generated for all members and a business that continually donates money and sponsors charity’s and other organisations'?
From my point of view, there is no wea...lth generation but transfer of money from those who sign up late to those who sign up early. And could you also back up on which charities got donations and the percentage of money donated out of the 'wealth generated'?
One last thing, could you back up on the fact that the coin which you get is really worth the amount of money which you paid for it? Statistics on the number of sales and the average price for the coins would be great!Read More
Reviewed Quest
Aug 23, 2007 07:57 PM
5759 Views
Quest.net is just one of those various pyramid schemes that have crumbled down over the years. It seems legal only because it includes the "sale" of a product. However, 2 main points have to be kept in mind (1) the scheme is unethical and (2) it is unsustainable.
(1) Why Unethical?
Very si...Read more
