Actually, according to what I consider to be the better theology

on the subject, it is the tree of life. The reason for that is that in Christian mysticism that tree prefigures the tree on which Christ was crucified. The timeline goes from the tree in Genesis to the moment in the desert described in Exodus when Moses hangs a serpent on a forked piece of wood and then to the crucifixion of Christ. In this way  Christian mystics believe that the tree in Genesis was itself a form of prefiguration of Christ and of the crucifixion.

That Chirst is considered as the Alpha and the Omega - the beginning adn the end - that Biblical continuum fits the theological construct.

As a manifestation of God, Christ is aware of the entire human history of achievement, error, agony and celebration.

As the appointer of Peter to lead a universal church, Christ can be considered the patron saint of franchising.

Group Denial

We had a better discussion about the group dynamics in the Tasti Di-Lite conversion situation.

Much of what Richard says is accurate, but the metaphor of "military operation" leaves much to be desired.  

The scope of changing or resisting an improper advance by the franchisor is always local in nature.  Five or six guys or gals plan a breakout strategy - but their mistake is to believe that the need 20 others instead of 2 or 3.

When a franchise system is irredeemiably done, there is no value to a large group trying to break out of the prison.  They must sneak out in smaller groups.  Bankrutpcy, non competes, distribution supply chains, and many other factors weigh in favour of the small organized group who wishes to leave a defunct system.  Only the small and nimble groups survive- the bigger groups that wait around for a saviour simply die.

You want what now?

Good heavens.

So Barabara posts for the first time in ages (Hi Barbara) and suddenly she owes herself and BMM some kind of  explanation for her feelings?

Michael, I feel disappointed to read the above quote from you.  You have a slightly better understanding than most on how fraud works in a psychological capacity and I can see that you are at least trying to demonstrate  the purchasers' psychological response and how important it is to resolving the  bad decision franchise problem.....

.....But,you already know the answer as to how what "was dangled in front of you seemed so compelling" as it's written on your blog, so you don't want the answer to know the answer so I'm having trouble convincing myself of a more noble reason for your post than the one I unfortunately have in mind.

I very much respect you (insofar as anyone can via the internet) and agree very much with your pysch angle on things but this comment of yours lacks the compassion I have come to expect from you in its purpose, even though you  try to soften your arrow by saying you hold no blame for where the target might lay.....

Why is BMM so fascinated with  having franchisees admit 5 or 10 or whatever % of the blame towards themselves?

 Why, everytime someone says they got a bum deal and it looks like something dodgy might  have happended or they can prove, as in the case of Oldsword, has been happening, do people have to insist on  franchisees allocating a percentage of fault to themselves before we will acknowledge the rest of the problem?

Where do we draw the line?  Am I deserving of scorn when I am 30% culpable but worthy of jurisprudence when I'm 28% culpable?

And why, if there are some obscure market intelligence reasons for finding that" blame percentage" do people do it in a way and using language that negates any likelihood of  a frank discussion that could make meaningful contribution to said market intelligence?

What for?

Why wouldn't good franchising and smart businesses be more concerned about the things they control and can change- such as it's own "percentage of blame" in bum deals rather than the part it cannot- which in this case is the poor, sheeplike, neanderthal, dumb, apathetic consumer/franchisee?

Fuwa, why should Barbara follow the argument you present- that two opposite guys saying the same thing must have merit?

Merit is based on well, merit.

In context and with due consideration to other facts.

Is that not what we try to tell would be franchisees all the time? To research things for themselves, to be savvy and wise to false logic... and now you want to argue points based on good cop- bad cop?

 If some BMM posters want someone to admit the mistakes they made in franchising so that everyone can learn and we can all work out what percentage of blame we can arbitrarily appoint across the board to franchisees, then fine, ask Me, because I am better placed to deal with the emotional fallout for something that will get none of us anywhere because apportioning fault is a fools game.

I'll start the"blame me, I was naive"  ball rolling  by admitting that I was completely stupid when I thought the lawyer I spoke to about my franchise contract had any idea what he was talking about. When he replied to my question about how my franchise agreement compared to others with "all franchise agreements are written this way" I should have recognised he was not directly answering my question and found another lawyer.... I seriously had no idea that lawyer types could be so damned clever to make their fee as I thought if I was paying them they were obliged to act in my interests.

Now that was stupid.

To be fair though I will admit something else: I wanted the business I bought and was fooled by the "someone else wants to buy the same territory" line. I should have recognised it for what it was. As it turned out, someone else DID want to buy my territory but they were as much a fool as I was. The use of such a line would ring alarm bells now, and it did  at the tiime but I didn't listen as I was keen on what I wanted( yes Michael, there's your pet point).

There were not enough other alarm bells ringing at the time so I thought I was being paranoid. This" I am going to be screwed out of a territory I have paid a deposit for" thing drew my attention away from other factors that deserved more of my attention.

I didn't recognise a diversonary tactic for what it was. Is that mistake a grounds to sue me or vilify me as some kind of loser?

Apparently.

Michael, if you want some expamples of how the brain works ( or doesn't work) when making bad decisions, I am happy to oblige publicly if you can convince me that my answers won't be used to "cool the mark".

As for you Fuwa,  I hope your exceptional  life experience and authoratative position  brings you everything that such a position demands.

Standing

Fuwa, you will lose your standing with the quasi Libertarian movement if you admit to "loving" a pinko Canadian!  (Although, I probably as ungovernable as you.)