Comments and Forum Discussion Problems

Do Diligence,

The term is "loading the language" and is used by many cults.

It is a crude way of stopping debate by attempting to intimidate a target. By using thought-terminating cliches (such as killer dd, FranWads) and blaming the victim, the bully is able to silence opposition not based on the quality of their reasoning but their experience in treating people as subhumans or intellectually inferior.

It is important to know that business thrives in fascist or totalitarian regimes. Bayer and Siemens (as well as IBM, I am told) did very well during WWII. 

Dr. Lifton has studied nazi doctors, Japanese military and Chinese "brainwashing" methods.

To understand the transparent tactics used by too many on this site, check out Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.

It is important not to take these attacks personally as that would imply the attacker considers you a human being.

In some minds, you are human garbage once your fillings are dealt with.

Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising

You can't claim one-note Nellies are off tune!

I realize you people want to ignore the constructive fraud of the package of a government disclosure and an adhesory contract agreement that protects franchisors and allows them to sell franchises at any degree of risk to the public. You don't think it is bad practice for the SBA to be guaranteeing loans on franchises with very high failure rates. You don't think that it was wrong for FranData to be selling Risk Profiles for $29.00 in which the failure rate of first-generation franchisees in franchise networks are disguised and obscured.

You want to concentrate on relationship issues and ignore the real problem that causes all of the fraud we are seeing today. It must be that you have given up on effecting any real change in the ineffective regulation of franchising, and are concentrating on losing the war and winning a battle ----for whom?

What is the point of having a good relationship with a franchisor who has tricked you into buying a franchise that may fail for the first owner 40% to 50% of the time, more or less? ---And, who can do this with immunity and impunity under federal regulatory policy and practice.

You know, as attorneys, that all of those who try to address the courts are there because they are angry that they were tricked into buying a franchise with a high failure rate and they are among the failures. Is it all just a big play and the actors all know their parts?

You know that the courts are closed, in practice, to any complaints about fraudulent inducement to contract by hiding the risk unless the A&R clauses can be overcome, You know that the franchisor side of the fence is where all of the big money is for attorneys and that they just throw bones out to the franchisee side of the BAR now and then ---to keep them barking.

I see I am the only one who has posted on EEOC and Medina ---who must have been pulling Janet Sparks leg when she said she looked at the contracts to see if the franchisor had any liability. This must be why Janet Sparks wrote this article ----very hard to pull her leg!