Re: What’s Worse…The Guru or the Reviewer? - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on March 19, 2000 at 16:44:49:
Nothing I’ve said differs now than in the past. I’m the first one to raise my hackles over some of the reviews and comments about Reed. I think he is in some ways biased, emotional, quick to judge and has little standard of equality in his recommendations. His personal opinions and beliefs influence things way too much. In my opinion.
All I?ve said is it?s not an easy job or undertaking. Should he not do it because of his own limitations? Not necessarily, but I would hope he could approach it differently. I am of the belief that ?polarization? rarely does any good. To be a Reed lover or Reed hater doesn?t serve much purpose. Yet, in the way he approaches some of this, there is hardly another result that could happen. It also sets up a scenario where his lack of objectivity is re-enforced and strengthened. Distortions about Reed and his motives serve no more of a productive purpose than distortions about ?gurus?.
After the correspondence with Reed my first impression changed from “Hatchet man with ulterior motives” to someone that is attempting to perform a service. When presented with factual details he made a change. We discussed other details and in a couple cases his facts were better than mine, so I couldn’t see where he was distorting “facts”.
Having seen behind the scenes and knowing much of the details I can relate to a little of John Reed’s position and challenges. At times in the past I have been overly harsh when asked my impression of a “guru” because I didn’t like them or knew something I found appalling. I’m not comfortable with that. I think the materials and the students results should be the focus - not whether someone has bad personal or financial habits.
I like to encourage students to get all the education they can while avoiding losses and losers. My solution at the time was to rely on students. At a seminar, I can usually open up the class to receive feedback from each other on the education and they say what I might have anyway.
Your examples are some of the ones that bother me most and I discussed some of them with John. I think the Britton thing is ridiculous given that all he did was look at an ad. The Ernie Kessler thing has nothing to do with anything. Whether Kaiser has ?too much white space? is not a reflection of content.
The analogy of some of his ?ratings? might be a restaurant reviewer that says ?when I walked in, I thought I saw what could be mice droppings in the corner…and that is one of the things on the list of what I consider bad?. I don?t think the tone and even innuendo serves - other than to stir controversy.
Of course the biggest was his characterization of CREonline. To discount all the value because of the potential risk of ?Cliff Clavens? and the other comments is ridiculous. His final comment to me was ?so and so? was a Cliff Claven if ever there was one. I know the person he referred to and it sure appears to me he is out in the market place doing deals. I?ve watched the posts and advice and haven?t seen anything errant.
Yet, there are Cliff?s that come in. Usually someone ?pants?es? them and throws them out in the parking lot. I have confidence in the knowledge base here that people like yourself, Terry, JP, Ed, Ray, Lonnie, Joe, Scott Britton and many others won?t put up with false or dangerous doctrine and that it usually turns into a great educational experience.
Shills? Very few, but some. Tons from one company. That?s obvious to most. One of them was here most of this week. Occasionally a ?student? pops in from one of the loosely connected ?gurus? and it is way too obvious it was the guru himself or at least prompted by him. I think Reed is wrong in the extent to which that happens, but unfortunately very committed to supporting some of his beliefs.
Looking in from the outside, it can appear as Reed believes. In their excitement and zeal, students from time to time rave about how their mentor walks on water or the home study course came down from Heaven. It?s a real stretch not to believe it isn?t the guru or his brother. I guarantee you I haven?t ever done that. It would turn my stomach.
What doesn?t work is one of the most valuable resources (CREonline) in the world is ?discounted? and warned against. With just a quick glance, I DISAGREE with 20 of Reed?s recommendations. Only one that is a neutral that ought to be stay away at all costs. A couple are un-qualifed ?yes?. Most would be a very specifically qualified yes, like ?his book is good, but chain your wallet if you are anywhere near him.? Or… ?read his real estate book but stay away from his advice on other subjects.?
The hardest ones are ?ead the book, but beware that some of the techniques are borderline ethical or legal.? You or I might be able to sort through, but what about others? That?s a dilemma. I have seen people burned by techniques they didn?t know better about. Many others have been hurt badly because a technique is easy to mis-apply.
I had that myself a few months back. A technique having to do with ?private paper? was questioned in it?s usage with a bank. It was not meant to be applied with institutions, but I could see how it was easy to mis-interpret .
The solution? My point? I don?t vacillate from day to day, I do have mixed feelings. I would feel like Saddam Husein if I made Reed out to be ?the great Satan.? That?s some of the approach here at times. Yet, he?s not Moses either. Unless the ?lost in the wilderness? analogy might apply. OOPS. Just changed my own rating back to negative.
I just think the polarization doesn?t serve. There is a place for Reed and what he has to say. I would hope for a scenario where given evidence to the contrary he could or would change the recommendations, review further or give space for rebuttal. Then there is greater value.
In the face of overwhelming emotion at times I just tend to do the ?Can?t we all just get along? thing. CREonline isn?t going away. Reed probably isn?t either. Yet, another ?McCorkle? is hatching a new scheme as we discuss this.
All I was trying to point out earlier is that I don?t think Reed is dead wrong, out to hurt people or ?purposely? distorting things. Yet, as I pointed out and have before, I disagree with the tone, approach and at least 20 of his recommendations (in a qualified way) while at the same time I do have some understanding of much of the motivation.
It?s a flawed ?system? and approach. It might be just as flawed if I or someone else was in the same position. I think of the one neutral recommendation I would change. Does drug abuse, gun smuggling, time in a Swedish jail, the fact that I have heard him lie in his speeches and owing me $4000 change the value of his materials? To me it does.