MLM Bot Watch 22 - Powered by Yazoo: Tragicomic cultic wampum flogging scamalangadingdongs like Forever Living, Ariix, Herbalife, Younique, Juiceplus, LifeTreeWorld

[LeafTreeRaker]

Still going strong here at bot watch HQ on MN!

Previous thread here

Botwatch on Wordpress and on Facebook

Timeless Vie on Wordpress and on Facebook

Eyespeying's Blog aka #manhun, even if he's been banned by MNHQ

Hommetepreneur on Facebook

We have our own regularly returning bots.

Glossary:

Bots: our affectionate name for victims of the MLM racket

MLM: Multi-level Marketing schemes - essentially pyramid schemes that are just legal because you sell a product. Reliant upon constant recruitment despite there not being enough people in the world to go beyond about 12 levels if everyone recruited 6.

Downline/Upline: the people you recruited and those who recruited you (going up and down the pyramid inverted funnel)

Timeless Vie: Parody of MLM schemes (though you might spot one in particular) that also carries out fearless investigative work

Hommetrepreneur: also excellent parody site focussing on the menz

BotWatch: Rather more serious, keeps an eye on what the Bots are claiming next, particularly in reference to health and income claims. Also fearless.

Inverted Funnel: Timeless Vie is NOT a pyramid - it's an inverted Funnel, OK?

Eyes: Our former member Eyespying who knows LOTS about MLM schemes. He's still our very own #manhun.

I would just like to clarify, I had a post deleted that talked about a young child, who I care about very deeply who has a very severe life limiting form of epilepsy, I do not understand why it was deleted. Thats why I was enraged by that earlier post. I was NOT referring to loves child as Botfan and cronies well know, if you reported it, then how low can you get? You can all speak about children you know with epileptic conditions, but I mention the dear child in my life and it gets deleted?
No wonder there is a misunderstanding by love as to who I was referring to!
I never called anyone shameless, Botfan called me shameless for referring to the child I care about.

Sorry... MNHQ but that needed saying, you deleted a post that has affected the entire point I was making and referred to a child in my life. Low blow.

I have no idea why that post was deleted Mrs - perhaps HQ got a bit trigger-happy last night

They may well have done forever its understandable given the circumstances, but exceptionally unfair, when it explained (IMO) the entire reason why Natasha using her epilepsy charity to deflect the conversation and paint herself in a golden light had angered me!

And I have had no explanation from them either...

Have you reported your post?

Sorry... Not 'Natashas charity', that should have read 'charity efforts'...

Nope forever I didnt...

Just popped over to timeless for a catchup... I notice someone is suggesting that the lady in the dm interview only did it for the payment, that raises an interesting question though... Natasha did you get paid to feature in the article you were dropped from too?

If not, would you have been paid if you had been featured?

Sorry... Another question, did FLPuk sanction you giving your version of events?

I saw your post MrsH and was quite disgusted in the way they were taunting you over the fact that you were upset as it was clearly a matter close to your heart. You never mentioned any other child.

I can see that they have had most of their posts deleted for their hateful bullying and spam.

The Mail will pay individuals for that sort of feature, but it genuinely isn't very much money (£250 ish) and it is standard tabloid practise. As Natasha was (presumably) giving her interview to promote her 'business', she may not have been offered payment.

Yes it's never very much. Would be interested to hear if Natasha was paid, but yes I see it could be seen as "promoting her business" and therefore PR (which is a form of payment).

Of course commenting that the woman was paid for the article is yet another attempt to drag her name through the mud. But no there's no bullying in FL. Nothing to see here! Move on.

This question is for loveabot are you an fbo?

We know exactly how furious she was at being treated so horribly on the fl fb manager pages. She would have done it for nothing!

Thanks noyouarenot it was quite upsetting... X

If you search for the #antoniahoyle on FB it will give you a general idea about the attitude those in Forever have for the poor woman in the article.

Apparently she didn't work hard enough or want it enough. (Forget that she made more in her first month than most FBOs make in 2 years!!)

Bullying, victim blaming nonsense.

Yes, I have seen some of those post shares noyouarenot they clearly dont see that it actually confirms what the lady in the interview said! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

And honestly, for Natasha's personal sake, I think it's a good thing that they didn't include her interview. They clearly made their mind up about the editorial tone of the piece from the get-go and Natasha's interview would have been used against her - it would have been very damaging to her personal reputation and she would have been left exposed & vulnerable.

Natasha, if I were you I would ask for help & support from FLP UK in safeguarding your reputation and dealing with the media. In my personal/professional opinion you came very close to catastrophe.

What???

Can you clarify what that means Arbunne... Im a little confused... Im not sure what you are saying?

Why should she need protecting frim her own opinions? She seems MORE than happy to express them, at any given opportunity! Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point...

Apologies for poor grammar... Tiny keyboard...

I'm saying that individuals with no media experience or support are likely to come out of these situations badly. In a J. O. B situation, you would have a PR person with you at such an interview to advise & protect you (not that that is any guarantee of interviews not being twisted by the media to support an editorial POV, but it helps to avoid the worst pitfalls). Natash was speaking in defence of FLP but presumably had no support or professional advice from them either ahead of time or on the day (correct me if I'm wrong). In the event that the interview had run, it's Natasha's personal image & reputation that would have been damaged and I doubt that she would have received much sympathy or support from FLP UK in the aftermath.

So rather than complaining that her interview wasn't used, in my opinion she should be relieved. She would be dealing with some epic fall-out right now and probably without support or back up.

I agree Arbunne, the writer had already seen the controversy and knew exactly the type of response the article would receive. Natasha would have become the face of Forever when she is a small fry by her own admission. She would have been the one directly in the firing line of the readers opinions/comments. I think it is a good thing for Natasha that she wasn't included in the final piece and I'm quite sure her version wouldn't have swayed the public anyways. Let's hope the way she spoke of the journalist in her own blog doesn't come back to haunt her, this is why FL want bots to stay quiet in the matter.