An Idea regarding John T. Reed - Posted by Jason

Posted by JPiper on March 19, 2000 at 13:34:29:

Hi Bill:

You may well be right…these threads regarding Reed may very well help him. But to clarify, my comments don’t have anything to do with the newletter or books that Reed writes…I haven’t read them. They relate only to the information I see on his “guru-rating” page. To me, one doesn’t have anything to do with the other…just like Reed’s comments regarding a guru’s activities in the seminar business don’t have anything to do with the guru’s real estate information.

I’m amazed that Reed has not yet reviewed your material. Supposedly all it takes is to send a copy of it to him. Maybe you should just add him to your email list…invite him to an upcoming workshop. He is in California I understand. If I were you I’d show up in a football coaches clothing…that may well help with the review.


An Idea regarding John T. Reed - Posted by Jason

Posted by Jason on March 15, 2000 at 17:27:46:

I had an idea about John T. Reed. Since it seems he spends all of his time analyzing everybody and trying to find out everything negative about everybody else, what somebody should do is make a website and keep up with everything that Reed does. Right or Wrong. If he is driving in his car and crosses the line just a little bit, write it up on the website so everybody can see it. I am sorry for venting, but I was just visiting his website and I couldn’t help it. To me, if somebody has that much time on their hands, to where they rate and judge people, than they need to get busy doing something else. Sorry for the venting!!!


Re: An Idea regarding John T. Reed - Posted by Mark

Posted by Mark on March 18, 2000 at 17:24:37:

Reed mentions many times on his website debating with various gurus on Larry King, 60 Minutes, etc.

I thought Reed was just a small time real estate investor who publishes a small newsletter monthly. How did he get on these programs and debate these individuals? How did he hold up in his debates?

Re: An Idea regarding John T. Reed - Posted by John Beck

Posted by John Beck on March 18, 2000 at 07:45:15:

Dear Jason:

I disagree with your analysis of John T. Reed.

Clearly he does not spend “all of his time analyzing everybody and trying to find out everything negative about everybody else”. He publishes an excellent monthly newsletter (where every month, month-in and month-out, I find at least one article of interest to me). Additionally, he has authored numerous excellent, and inexpensive, real estate books. All of these activities clearly take up a great deal more time than the “gurus” portion of this Internet web site. Try publishing a quality, monthly newsletter; I did for several years. It’s hard work!

Additionally, his “guru” rating are not totally negative. As Reed points out: “A number of people have accused me of being against ‘everybody.’ In fact, for the arithmetically challenged, my recommendations are about evenly split one third for each category (i.e. “I recommend”, neutral, and “I do not recommend”)”.

Further, I have found his rating and discussions of so-called real estate “gurus” (found at to be generally accurate and, if used properly, potentially very helpful ? especially for the beginner. I can use the work “accurate” since I know, or have known, personally a very high percentage of the individuals evaluated. I use the word “potentially very helpful” because I personally know that several of the individuals who received “I do not recommend” recommendations are complete, absolute frauds. They are “book and tape” salespersons who never made any money using the real estate investment approaches they advocate but are selling “educational” materials which they claim “guarantee” that beginners buying their materials will make big money using “their” approaches. There is a BIG difference between a person who has made big money using a particular real estate approach selling product teaching beginners how to use that approach and a person selling product on how to make money using a particular real estate approach who has never used that approach to make even a dime.

However, I disagree with some of his evaluations (and, as John says himself, “For the record, I believe everything I have said is accurate, but I am not perfect. If any visitor to my site sees a factual error, I would appreciate it if they would apprise me of that fact so I can correct it as soon as possible.”). For instance, I think that J.P. Vaughan (and her web site) deserves an “I recommend” rating - not a “neutral” (neither a “recommend” or a “do not recommend”) rating; and I have argued with John (without success) over this several times.

However, even though I disagree with J. P.'s rating, I think there’s value in Reed’s discussion of that rating. For instance, Reed states the following:

I will not link to the site because they do not screen comments or require commenters to identify themselves, both of which are unacceptable to me. The site appears to have many useful comments from good people. But they are mixed in with impersonators, shills who are praising themselves or an associate without disclosing their connection to the guru being praised, shills who condemn competitors without disclosing that conflict of interest, “cultists” who believe certain gurus can do no wrong, and just plain dummies who do not know what they are talking about. Vaughan allows all this under the rationale of freedom of speech. Her site reminds me of the bar scene in Star Wars: some normal people there, but a lot of weirdos and outlaws, too. “Buyer beware” is an ancient legal admonition. In view of the lawless nature of Vaughan’s news group, “Web site visitor beware” is good advice.

In my opinion, “‘Web site visitor beware’ IS good advice”. There is a great deal of inaccurate information given out on J. P.'s web site. However, I can say that I have NEVER ONCE gone on J. P.'s “Interactive News Group” and not learned something that I thought was valuable. In fact, there have been occasions when I’ve hesitated to go on the site because I know I wont be able to get off in less than an hour ? and I couldn’t at that time afford to spend that amount of time. I’ve tried to get Reed “addicted” to J. P.'s site, but he has refused. In my opinion, he can at times be very hardheaded.

Clearly, it would be extremely difficult and time consuming for J. P. to scene every posting to the extent Reed advocates. I don’t thing she should be placed in that position; and, personally, I wouldn’t want her doing so. To have free speech, we must all take the good with the bad. It is incumbent upon each of us to do the best we can to distinguish between the two. Further, I believe that Reed’s “guru” ratings can assist in making that distinction when a beginner needs to decide whether to buy a particular real estate educational product or to take a particular real estate seminar ? and, consequently, for that purpose, are desirable.

John Beck

Here’s An Analysis… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on March 15, 2000 at 17:42:34:

The analysis contains information regarding deeds in lieu of foreclosure of Texas apartment buildings by Reed. One wonders how Reed would have dealt with this had one of the gurus that Reed reviews have been involved in such activity.


Re: An Idea regarding John T. Reed - Posted by chris

Posted by chris on March 18, 2000 at 21:50:12:

I have not seen the debates or TV segments. Other mentions of him in media:

Money Magazine and the Real Estate section of have mentioned him favorably in the past as an authority on purchasing property at a discount.

With all of these mainstream sources giving him so much credit it is not surprising that he is mentioned so often.


My problem with the reviews… - Posted by Mark (SDCA)

Posted by Mark (SDCA) on March 20, 2000 at 11:48:17:

Some of the “reasons” he gives for not recommending are absurd. Notice the one for A.D. Kessler??

A.D. Kessler-I do not recommend
Some of his Creative Real Estate Magazine’s article authors are good. Broker oriented.

He says that some of the authors in his magazine are good and then gives him a “Do not recommend”? Huh??

US Mortgage Reduction—I do not recommend
Got a request about this company. I would appreciate it if someone would please loan me some of their written or recorded material so I can evaluate it in detail.

Shouldn’t this be a neutral??
What is his criteria?? It seems to me that he defaults to a Do Not Recommend…


I interrupt this debate with a substantive real estate question… - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on March 19, 2000 at 13:32:16:

Mr. Beck,

I have a vexing tax lien problem which maybe you can help me with. I bought a municipal tax lien last year on a nice suburban home owned by an estate. I then continued to pay subsequent taxes for a year which the town gladly accepted. After four quarterly payments I get my fifth payment returned to me with a letter from the town saying that during the past year the estate was declared insolvent and the property sold by court order (for $190,000) FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL TAX LIENS! I was told I was now an unsecured creditor of an insolvent estate. Although my lien was promptly recorded at the County I was notified of NOTHING! The town had been getting notices all along which they never forwarded to me. Other lienholders and judgment creditors were getting served. Me, nothing. I am now going ballistic, suing the sellers of the property, the buyers, the town and the title company who insured title, threatening rescission of the sale, etc. Have you ever come across anything like this? It is truly mind-boggling. I would appreciate your viewpoint. Thanks.

Great to see you here, Mr. Beck - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on March 18, 2000 at 21:18:26:

I am a tax lien foreclosure attorney /investor in NJ. I try to handle all the tax lien questions that come up on this site but since I am limited to NJ law and procedure I can only help so much. I know your input would be greatly appreciated. Hope to see you here regularly.

A Correction and Some Number Crunching… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on March 18, 2000 at 12:24:29:

Hi John:

Just thought I?d correct a factual error. It appears that Mr. Reed has misinformed you.

I checked out Reed?s guru page?.and counted the favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses. According to my count, he has 101 ?reviews? on his site (as of today). The way these reviews break down is as follows: 56 Do Not Recommend, 26 Neutral, and 19 Recommend. This is hardly the ?one-third split? that Mr. Reed alludes to.

You might be interested though in delving into these numbers somewhat more in depth. The so-called ?neutral? reviews of Reed?s for the most part are not reviews at all. Most of these neutral ratings stem from not having information from which to review. In case you doubt this take a look. So it basically appears that when Reed does in fact review, he rates the ?guru? as either ?recommend? or ?do not recommend? with very few exceptions.

When looked at in this light, if we add up the actual reviews (approximately the total of the recommend and do not recommend) what we get is a total of 75 actual reviews. Of those 56 or 75% are negative. If we added in the very few neutrals that were actually reviewed, it wouldn?t skew these percentages much at all. Further, a few of the ?recommended gurus? are actually not gurus at all, but rather courses such as the CCIM course?.thus shifting the percentages even more sharply toward the disapproval side. Or taken another way, Reed approves of approximately 19% of the total gurus that he mentions on his site.

Whether this lopsided percentage of ?do not recommend? ratings is a reflection of the ?truth?, or whether it is a reflection of Reed?s method of criticism I?ll leave for you to decide. Either way though, it?s clear that Reed?s reviews are NOT evenly balanced in their results.

I would suggest however that in at least one of the cases where Mr. Reed has issued his ?do not recommend? rating, it appears to me that he has NOT actually reviewed the material. Rather, the review reads as an outright hatchet job. To read this particular review read the review of Scott Britton. Here is his review:

?According to a promotional mailing I received, he sells a video in which you learn how to “make $10,000 in 98 days.” $10,000 divided by 98 = $102.04 per day or $102.04 divided by eight hours = $12.76 per hour. According to my local want ads, you can make that much in jobs like the following: driver, chauffeur, customer service, child care site supervisor, carpet cleaner. Britton’s way of making the $12.76 a hour is rehabbing buildings that you must buy, rehab, then sell to get your money. There is far less risk and effort in a customer-service job.?

Whether you and I or Reed agree that a $10K profit on a rehab is sufficient, one thing that at least you and I could probably agree on is that Britton is not advising people to to pick up a hammer and start pounding away for 784 hours. My guess is that Reed knows this as well, or should, if he actually reviewed the video. Rather, it appears that Reed?s analysis is based strictly on a promotional mailing.

The questions I have for you are these: Which of Reed?s reviews are actually based on a thorough review of the authors materials? Which of his reviews are actually balanced and fair? Which of Reed?s reviews are of the type reprinted above? How would a person interested in receiving accurate reviews know the difference?

By the way, I happen to agree with Reed?s review of you?.but my agreement is based on having actually read some material of yours.


A few thoughts about Jack - Posted by Jacob

Posted by Jacob on March 18, 2000 at 10:59:56:

Mr Beck,

Forst off, let me say that I have your “Free and Clear” program and have found it to be excellent. By far the best intro into tax liens I have ever read. It’s always nice to read real-world info, instead of a bunch of theories.

I also appreciate the fact that you have defended your good friend Jack Reed. After all, what are friends for?

If you have read anything I have written about Reed on this site, you might have noticed that I am not a big fan of his. There are several reasons for this.

First off, he goes way overboard on the negative ratings on this site. He also seems to favor negtinve ratings for authors that have competing materials with him. In fact, his favorite advice always seems to be to read his stuff, it’s always much better than whomever he is critiquing.

Secondly, I have a hard time taking investment advice from someone who admits he hasn’t purchased real estate since the 80’s. He wouldn’t qualify as an expert in the “no money down” area either, as the only deal like this he ever did was using a VA loan. But, he has no problem criticizing people that consistently do these deals. Many of these investors are some of the most ethical people you or I will ever meet.

Thirdly, he regularly looks for reasons to plug himself. He loves to talk about his Harvard degree, his time at West Point and how this makes him so much more qualified than anyone else. That type of arrogance is digusting and turns many away. East coast elitism.

Fourthly (is there such a word? :slight_smile: ) I don’t like the manner in which he criticizes some very good people. I have never met John Behle in person, and am personally not a big Joe Kaiser fan. However, his critiques of both go way overboard, especially John Behle. Reed seems to have saved some special negativity for this kind and gracious man. I personally find that tasteless and disgusiting.

I firmly believe that one can seperate the materials and works from the man. I personally disagree with much that is in the books by Lonnie Scruggs, but would wholeheartedly agree that he is one of the most generous and giving men around. He inspires many with his acts, including me.

Your friend Jack Reed could learn a lot about grace and class from John Behle and Lonnie Scruggs. Perhaps then he wouldn’t be labled the way he has, and you could spend your time here reading, instead of defending a man that needs more than your defense.


Re: Here’s An Analysis… - Posted by jason

Posted by jason on March 15, 2000 at 17:51:04:

Reed would probably still blast the investor, it seems to be what he is good at.

Re: I interrupt this debate with a substantive real estate question… - Posted by John Beck

Posted by John Beck on March 19, 2000 at 18:02:19:

Dear Ben:

Having read some of your posting on other tax certificate/tax lien questions, I assume that you’re talking about a New Jersey situation.

Since you properly recorded you tax certificate, you should have been served. As you undoubtedly already know, your situation clearly appears to involve U.S. Constitional issues. See for instance, Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in the famous tax sale case of Mennonite Board Of Missions V. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983):

In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950), this Court recognized that prior to an action which will affect an interest in life, liberty, or property protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a State must provide “notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

This case is controlled by the analysis in Mullane. To begin with, a mortgagee [or, by analogy, a tax certificate holder] possesses a substantial property interest that is significantly affected by a tax sale. Under Indiana law, a mortgagee acquires a lien on the owner’s property which may be conveyed together with the mortgagor’s personal obligation to repay the debt secured by the mortgage. Ind. Code 32-8-11-7 (1982). A mortgagee’s security interest generally has priority over subsequent claims or liens attaching to the property, and a purchase-money mortgage takes precedence over virtually all other claims or liens including those which antedate the execution of the mortgage. 32-8-11-4. The tax sale [or, by analogy, sale by state court order] immediately and drastically diminishes the value of this security interest by granting the tax-sale purchaser a lien with priority over that of all other creditors. Ultimately, the tax sale may result in the complete nullification of the mortgagee’s interest, since the purchaser acquires title free of all liens and other encumbrances at the conclusion of the redemption period.

Since a mortgagee clearly has a legally protected property interest, he is entitled to notice reasonably calculated to apprise him of a pending tax sale. Cf. Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52, 67 (1853). When the mortgagee is identified in a mortgage that is publicly recorded, constructive notice by publication must be supplemented by notice mailed to the mortgagee’s last known available address, or by personal service. But unless the mortgagee is not reasonably identifiable, constructive notice alone does not satisfy the mandate of Mullane.4 [462 U.S. 791, 799]

I’d say that it appears you got screwed, and you should go “ballistic”. I assume (since you’re a N.J. attorney) that you can keep you attorney’s fee down; otherwise, litigation would probably not be economically viable.

John Beck

Re: A Correction and Some Number Crunching… - Posted by John Beck

Posted by John Beck on March 18, 2000 at 18:16:39:

Dear JPiper:

I stated in my initial comment the following:

Additionally, his “guru” rating are not totally negative. As Reed points out: “A number of people have accused me of being against ‘everybody.’ In fact, for the arithmetically challenged, my recommendations are about evenly split one third for each category (i.e. “I recommend”, neutral, and “I do not recommend”)”.

Clearly his “guru” ratings are not totally negative. However, you are correct; they are not “about evenly split one third for each category” as Reed states at his web site. In my quick count, I counted 20 “I recommend” and 56 “I do not recommend” evaluations. Since Reed is stickler for truth and accuracy, he should be faulted for this mistake/“misrepresentation”. Additionally, I should not have quoted his mistake/“misrepresentation” without verifying its accuracy.

The fact that he made this mistake/“misrepresentation” clearly shows that he is not infallible. Remember John says himself, “For the record, I believe everything I have said is accurate, but I am not perfect. If any visitor to my site sees a factual error, I would appreciate it if they would apprise me of that fact so I can correct it as soon as possible.”

As an actual example, read his evaluation of John Behle. In response to criticism from Behle of Reed’s prior evaluation of Behle, Reed stated: “My (John T. Reed’s) response (4/17/99) to John Behle’s email: I stand corrected. I was wrong. My apologies to John (Behle).” (Note: In part, I bare some responsibility for Reed’s initially inaccurate evaluation of Behle. I had numerous people approach me wanting to know if I was the “John B.” who had sent mailing piece in question. I called the 800 number on the mailing piece and was told that it was “John Behle”. I was not happy about the situation and I told Reed about it. It wasn’t until Behle contacted Reed that either Reed or myself learned that Behle had also been victimized ? and to a much greater extent than I felt I had been.)

As to Reed’s rating of Scott Britton: To the best of my knowledge, I have never even met the man. I have not seen any of this educational materials. Consequently, I could neither recommend or not recommend him or his material.

I wouldn’t use the words “hatchet job” to characterize Reed’s evaluation of Britton, but it does appear to me that Reed’s evaluation of Britton was based upon his evaluation of a Britton promotional mailing piece and not upon Reed’s having personally reviewed Britton’s educational material. Assuming this to be the case, Reed’s evaluation of Britton is clearly incomplete. If you feel the evaluation is not justified (possibly because you have Briton’s educational material and like it), then why not send it to Reed for review and return to you. Rather than criticize the quality of Reed’s efforts, help him do a better job.

In this regard, I recommend you read John Behle comments. As Behle states: “Sure, some of it is overly negative, but much is more accurate than most would know.” Behle has been around and knows. I’ve been around and know. There is a need for a “guru” rating system.

John Beck

Re: A few thoughts about Jack - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on March 18, 2000 at 13:44:17:

I exchanged many emails with Mr. Reed when I appeared on his list. At first his rating was negative, then when the facts came out he changed it to neutral.

In somewhat of his defense, he came to a common conclusion about the ad that he mentions. Many people though myself, John Beck or anyone named “John B” had something to do with the ad. We all paid the price.

I had many of my clients and students join that company’s service thinking I personally had endorsed it to them in that ad they sent. It damaged me enough that it took an attorney to get them to stop.

Anyway, John Reed didn’t jump too far into a conclusion over that ad. No question, it WAS a deceptive ad and offensive to someone who likes their facts straight. It just wasn’t MY ad or anything I had anything to do with. After we communicated he corrected it and apologized.

I don’t think some of his reviews are very objective, but know many of the people on the list and would have to agree. I could probably double the size of his list with some of the inside information or “dirt” I know on some of the “so-called gurus”.

I know how “incensed” someone can feel about the scams and frauds that are out there. You can’t truly care about education or your students without having your stomach turned by some of what goes on.

I think John Reed means well actually. I believe he is trying to perform a valuable service. The problem is any one person trying to rate others will have their problems with objectivity. Just as any sport or competition usually requires a “panel” of judges and still even a whole panel can miss something, be swayed or be accused of a lack of objectivity.

I suggested to John that student comment and feedback would be important. A more statistical approach - like you would rate a diamond - color, cut, clarity, carets, etc. He pointed out his concern about “shills”, lack of objectivity of students or the “guru worship” that can go on. To me that is a very valid point. Much of the “Rah Rah” can be from students who have yet to apply the materials - or like in the case of a “McCorkle” - paid actors.

Sure, some of it is overly negative, but much is more accurate than most would know. A few instances like Kaiser or Britton seem totally out of place, but I haven’t seen their materials - only the knowledge and experience that manifests in their posts.

Some of it seems overly “fear based”. Fear for the students or “potential victims” of some of the “McCorkles” of the world. Just like an attorney will focus on the “downside” and negativity of a situation to protect their client.

I can’t fault that too much, except that it doesn’t go far enough. It can’t. This is one man with a life, business, family, hobbies, etc. - not the “Ralph Nader organization.” He can’t do indepth reporting of every person in the industry and check out every fact, testimonial, etc.

How long did McCorkle thrive before he was exposed? Many times it is something like unpaid refunds and action from a government agency that starts the ball rolling before any news agency or reporter picks it up.

So, how do we protect people from the next McCorkle? That may not be yours, mine or John Reed’s job - but I’m sure we would like to. I hate to see people burned by a scam artist.

Instead of fighting against Reed’s attempt maybe everyone can come up with a better way. I think there is value in critical analysis of materials, ideas, seminars, etc. Yet, there is value in student comments. Neither are totally objective, but maybe together they can serve a purpose.

My approach would be to have un-edited comments from students and others both before and after critical analysis. And then that analysis can be open to anyone qualified that wants to contribute.

I’m not sure if McCorkle would have gotten as far as he did if more people had been posting here. The negative experiences would have surfaced. Sometimes the critical analysis comes too late in the game or needs to come from someone more objective or qualified to review a particular course or area of study.

It is way too difficult for one person. I have a very hard time trying to seperate personal feelings and experience from the whole situation.

There are people I like personally that I would not recommend their materials. There are materials that are good where the person is a waste of air. I think of so-called “gurus” that have tried to hustle my wife at a convention. “Gurus” who may have some decent materials yet lacking in experience, bad personal problems, or use manipulative tactics like running down the isle with a $100 bill or standing on a table shouting about success stories.

Some gurus have literally stolen their material from someone else. Much of what is published or promoted out there on paper has been stolen from my materials. Some gurus have some good materials and others that are bad or programs to avoid.

It’s hard to be objective in this area. Difficult not to be negative and even incensed at what goes on. A real challenge not to be “quick to judge” in defense of those that could be hurt. Especially hard to get past the habits, problems or mistakes of a personality to review or recommend their materials. It’s tempting to refer them to someone you trust as opposed to taking their chances with someone you don’t know or like.

Oh well. Need to get some other things accomplished today besides this post.

Thanks for the prompt response… - Posted by Ben (NJ)

Posted by Ben (NJ) on March 19, 2000 at 19:05:50:

The due process violation is clear and will certainly get me into court, I am just worried that the judge at some point will say “okay, consider yourself notified… you’re still screwed.” My hope is with all these defendants that they start pointing fingers at each other and someone gets nervous enough to pony up my money and tell me to get lost. My prediction is the title company will crumble, they are already backpedaling fast! Thanks again!

What’s Worse…The Guru or the Reviewer? - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on March 19, 2000 at 11:57:43:

Thanks for your comments.

You say in your post: ?As to Reed’s rating of Scott Britton: To the best of my knowledge, I have never even met the man. I have not seen any of this educational materials. Consequently, I could neither recommend or not recommend him or his material.?

This statement really makes the point I was attempting to make. Mr. Reed has not seen Mr. Britton?s materials either. He has only seen a promotional piece. While that may stop you from a recommendation of any sort, it clearly does not stop Reed. In fact, when I first noticed this review of Britton, if memory serves, Reed did not have any reference to a ?promotional piece??..rather, the review was presented without that statement, thus indirectly implying that he had actually reviewed the material.

You wouldn?t characterize Reed?s review of Britton as a ?hatchet job?. You evidently do characterize it as ?incomplete?. I find that characterization to be woefully understated. Yes it is definitely incomplete since he hasn?t reviewed the material. But more than that, translating profit into an hourly wage is absolutely nonsensical. Would you translate rental income of $200 per month on a single family home into a 40-hour a week wage to PROVE that this technique makes no sense?

My point however regarding Britton was not necessarily to defend Britton. My point was to use his review as an illustration of Reed?s EVALUATION TECHNIQUE. The review is NOT based on the material. Britton?s techniques are never discussed. Reed simply arrives at a number out of the air (8 hours per day) and then compares that to wages out of his newspaper. Did Britton work on this deal 8 hours per day? We don?t know. How much money did Britton have exposed in this rehab? We don?t know. Did Britton do his own work? We don?t know. Do you believe that a newbie was well served by this review? Do you really believe that Reed?s review was only ?incomplete??

In fact, your account of the original Behle review is illuminating. You found out some information as I understand it, which was later relayed to Reed. Now I don?t have a clue what Reed did to verify all this information. But clearly he reached an incorrect conclusion?.which was only corrected AFTER he had published it on his website. It almost appears that part of Reed?s conclusion, if not all, was based on third-party hearsay, according to your comment. Interestingly, the original review did not cover anything regarding Behle?s real estate information, but was strictly regarding a mailing list. Even had the mailing list fiasco been true, one wonders where the review of real estate information was, and why it was appropriate for a review of a real estate guru to be done on the basis of a mailing list.

And therein lies the rub. If you take a close look at Reeds guru page, you?ll notice significant information that is unrelated to real estate information per se. In one case, as an example, we learn that Reed had dealings with a guru who didn?t verify a schedule with him?..understandably irritating, but unrelated to real estate information. In another case we learn that a guru stiffed Reed on payment for an article. Again interesting, but having little to do with the guru?s real estate information. It?s an old technique. Throw enough negatives out there, whether they?re related to the subject at hand or not, and you?re sure to confuse most of the people. If Robert Allen had judgments filed against him for non-payment of speakers at his seminars, throw that ?fact? out there, despite whether it has anything to do with real estate information (as opposed to the seminar business). Do you think this technique unduly influences a reader of the review?

What standard would you find appropriate that Reed himself be held to? Does he have any responsibility at all? Or is it anything goes in his review, and because he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, and because he tells us he is a man of integrity, and because evidently you and Behle see a crying need for this service, that ANYTHING that he says is OK? If Reed reviews 5 guys, and gets it wrong on one or two, is that OK with you, in the name of a ?higher interest??

You make the statement toward the end of your post: ?In this regard, I recommend you read John Behle comments. As Behle states: “Sure, some of it is overly negative, but much is more accurate than most would know.” Behle has been around and knows. I’ve been around and know. There is a need for a “guru” rating system.?

Mr. Behle is attributed with the following statement on Reed?s web page:

From what I’ve heard, his books are very worthwhile reading, HIS OPINIONS OF OTHERS IN MANY CASES ARE FLAWED (emphasis mine)."?

Don?t know about you, but it appears to me that Mr. Behle has different opinions of Reed at different times. Perhaps he will clarify.

Is there a need for a guru rating system? Why not, we rate almost everything else in this society. But in Mr. Reed?s case, ratings may be based on pertinent facts, or they may not be. Many times his reviews are based on facts unrelated to the information at hand. At times Mr. Reed jumps to conclusions. In other words, Mr. Reed?s reviews have an emotional tinge to them that may not serve the newbie well at all. When Reed ?goes after? someone, he does it with both barrels, pulling out the stops using whatever he can against that guru, whether it is related to real estate information or not. It?s all there jumbled together under the guise of doing us all an important service.

My suggestion to you would be to re-read ALL of Mr. Reed?s reviews. Evaluate my comments on the basis of that reading. Your legal training has a basis in fact and rational thought?.so use that to evaluate the reviews. In fact, I urge you to obtain a copy of Kiyosaki?s ?Rich Dad, Poor Dad?. Look up some of Reed?s quotes, compare them to the context in which they are found in the book, and to the conclusions Reed draws. When you have done this I would welcome your characterization of Reed?s reviews. Until then, I?m not sure what?s worse?..the guru or the reviewer.


Re: A Correction and Some Number Crunching… - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on March 19, 2000 at 02:25:25:


bottom line is, if Reed focused on things in a more postive since, realized their were other ways to do things than his way, He would get more product sold which I’m assuming is his ultimate goal.

Look at what he did with Robert K’s book, was ridiculous, especially the part about the note.

I agree with Jacob, His Arrogance is pretty amazing, especially since he doesnt even do RE anymore, on top that add the whole, I’m the only person with integrity thing… Geesh.

I make it a point to believe that I can learn from anyone the guy on the street, or the guy on top of the world. I believe that we all have something to offer, for each others knowledge. You know what though, I wouldnt touch anything that Reed puts out with a ten foot pole simply because of his Attitude… and that’s sad for me because I’m sure there is something to learn, but’s it just way too clouded with Arrogance, and attitude for me to stomach.

David Alexander

There’s Reed’s version, then reality - Posted by Jacob

Posted by Jacob on March 18, 2000 at 22:23:53:

Mr. Beck,

Hmmm… No response to what I wrote. Perhaps it rang to close to the truth, or perhaps I am not as esteemed as Piper is. (Well, I know I’m not in Piper’s category. :slight_smile: )

You made a nice feel-good statement about helping Jack by sending in materials so he can review them. That way, he won’t do so many biased hatchet jobs like he did against Britton.

There’s only one probelem with that statement. You see, I have tried to send Jack several things for his “review.” These included Britton’s materials, and also from the infamous scam shop Nation-Wide. I wanted to see if he was legitimately trying to help people avoid scams. Nation-Wide is an obvious, blatant scam. Well, lo and behold, Mr. Reed was too busy BOTH times to bother taking a lool at the stuff.

I could wager several guesses as to why that was. The obvious reason to me at least was that neither materials competed with anything he wrote. Therefore, he had nothing to gain by another one of his hatchet jobs he has become so well known for.

There’s no question that there is a need for a “guru” watchdog. In fact, there is a crying need for something like that. The problem from where I stand is that Reed is clearly not the one to do it. His ratings seem to be based on who worshops at the throne of Jack and who might be competing with his stuff. One gets the feeling from his site that it takes a “Hah-vahd” education to figure out what really works. That kind of arrogance sickens me and clouds any legitimate advice he might give, of which I have no doubt there is plenty.


Re: A few thoughts about Jack - Posted by John Beck

Posted by John Beck on March 18, 2000 at 18:25:42:

Dear John:

I think you posting is excellent.

John Beck