|♦ REFRESH to rotate MAAMAW'S CLICKY NOTES thru this space..... Timely Tips, Best of the Boards & More ♦|
Be sure to visit the Current Message Board when you're finished here.
We're very friendly, so don't be shy... just jump right in and post your question.
Scams outnumber legitimate biz ops about a bzillion to one, so it's well worth your time.
|| View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ||
FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives
Posted By: shawn In Response To: For All You Kiyosaki Detractors (Larry Foster)
Thursday, 13 January 2005, at 11:26 a.m.
In Response To: For All You Kiyosaki Detractors (Larry Foster)
> Robert Kiyosaki's Public Response to John T. Reed's Review of "Rich
> Dad, Poor Dad"
> The public letter below was written and posted by Robert Kiyosaki on
> Cashflow Technologies' older discussion board sometime in February 2000
> when the infamous review of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" by John T. Reed
> first debuted. I would have preferred to place the actual URL to that post
> but it is no longer in existence because apparently their archive only
> goes back to April 2000. Because it was a well-written response, I did
> keep a copy of it.
> It should be noted that Mr. Reed's review has evolved during the course of
> the year to include more recent events such as Robert's appearance on
> Oprah. Some things have been added, modified, or deleted from Mr. Reed's
> review. This letter was a public response to Mr. Reed's earlier version of
> his review.
> As a personal comment, it is my opinion that Robert's initial letter still
> stands up on its own merits. I find the review on Mr. Reed's site odd
> because while Robert Kiyosaki is fond of real estate investing, "Rich
> Dad, Poor Dad" is not a real estate book, nor has Robert ever claimed
> to be a "real estate guru". Mr. Reed has obviously decided to do
> a "review" out of context regardless of these 2 facts.
> MatthewC (Host of MasterMind Forum)
> A REPLY FROM ROBERT KIYOSAKI
> SUB: JOHN T. REED'S COMMENTS ABOUT RICH DAD POOR DAD
> I normally do not reply to comments about me or my books and products. But
> many friends called me with concern about John T. Reed's comments on his
> personal web site, so I decided to glance over his in depth report on my
> First of all, I support our right to the freedom of speech. When I read
> comments on my company's bulletin board, I weigh both compliments and
> criticisms equally and welcome both. I make no comments simply because
> both compliments and criticism are important and I do not want to
> encourage or discourage either. I reply to John T. Reed's report simply
> because it is much more than a criticism. I find it more of an angry
> attack and I wonder why. I wonder why someone so smart and so rich would
> spend so much time writing a lengthy heated report on my simple little
> So rather than say nothing I thought it best to offer you my view on his
> report and let you come to your own conclusions.
> The following are my points to you, not him, on some of the points he
> 1. First of all, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" is a very simple book. It
> was not meant to be a textbook for the Harvard Business School.
> 2. Second of all, RDPD was meant to take a very complex subject and make
> it simple. It seems he took what was simple and made it complex.
> 3. "Rich Dad Poor Dad" is a true story of a man who did not
> graduate from high school, yet ultimately became one of the richest men in
> 4. As my rich dad said, "In school, your measure of success is your
> report card. In the real world, your report card is your financial
> statement." My rich dad did not have a good report card but he had a
> good financial statement.
> 5. "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" is a story of a simple man teaching two
> 9 year old boys his 6 basic lessons about money. As I said earlier, this
> book was not meant for students of the Harvard Business School. If
> "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" raised the hair on John T. Reed's back, my
> next book, "Rich Dad's Guide to Investing", which is now due out
> on May 1, 2000, will cause him to write an even longer report. I can't
> wait to read his next document.
> 6. And finally, his accusations about my college education are worthy of
> comment. I considered going to the school he went to, which was West
> Point. It is the federal military academy that trains officers for the
> U.S. Army. I did not apply for a congressional appointment to his school,
> although it is a fine school. I chose my school, the U.S. Merchant Marine
> Academy at Kings Point, New York for two reasons. And they are:
> I wanted to learn about international trade. Kings Point trains officers
> to sail ships such as tankers, cargo ships, and passenger liners to carry
> on commerce throughout the world. At Kings Point I studied subjects I love
> such as Naval Architecture, International Trade, Sailing, Navigation,
> Admiralty Law, International Law, Business Law, as well as the regular
> hard sciences. I also spent a year abroad, sailing on passenger ships like
> the Love Boat and sailing to places such as Hong Kong, Thailand, Alaska,
> and Tahiti. I was being paid to go to school while I sailed the world. It
> was a great way to get a college education.
> Kings Pointers were at that time, some of the highest paid graduates in
> the world. In 1964, when I had to choose between Kings Point and West
> Point, a West Point graduate was making about $200 a month. A Kings Point
> graduate was starting out at over $2,000 a month and higher. So although
> Kings Point is not as prestigious a school as West Point, a 1000% ROI
> difference per month for the same 4 year education seemed like a smart
> financial decision to me.
> The reason King Pointers were paid more upon graduation than West Pointers
> was because Kings Pointers graduated as civilians and West Pointers
> graduated as military officers. Kings Pointers were paid by private
> shipping companies while West Pointers were paid by the federal
> government. That is why, when I graduated and went to work for Standard
> Oil of California, my pay was $42,000 a year, in 1969. West Pointers were
> making a little less than $5,000 a year. My classmates who sailed civilian
> cargo ships in Vietnam were paid double combat pay, although, they were
> not in much danger, which meant that many were paid $80,000 to $120,000 a
> year upon graduation. Not too bad for a 22 year old kid in 1969.
> Although I was draft exempt and did not have to go to Vietnam because I
> was a Merchant Marine Officer, I chose to resign from my high paying job
> and join the U.S. Marine Corps. I went to flight school and then on to
> fight in Vietnam. Both of my dads thought it was the duty of a young man
> to defend his country in time of war and that is what I did in 1969. So I
> only had that high paying job for only a short period of time.
> And that is my reply to John T. Reed's report. It is written to you, not
> to him. I suspect he would only get angrier if I tried to reason with him.
> I replied because what he said seemed much more than a criticism of my
> Book, it seemed like a personal attack. He has some valid points and I am
> sure he is a very smart man.
> In fact, he acknowledges that the Thunderbird School of International
> Management of Arizona is one of the top schools in international business.
> Should we tell him that Thunderbird uses "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" as
> part of its curriculum in its entrepreneur program, and that I have been
> invited to speak to its students on several occasions? Please refer to the
> testimonial from Thunderbird on our website.
> Yet, my book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" while technically accurate,
> was not meant to be a technical book. It is a simple book about an often
> complicated and technical subject. "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" was
> written primarily to offer hope to people who wanted to find their own
> path to financial freedom rather than to be a slave to money all their
> It was written to let people know that regardless if you did well in
> school or not, regardless if you had a high paying job or not, that each
> and everyone of us has the ability to reach the land of financial freedom
> if we have the proper financial education.
> As a final note, there is a new book out that I highly recommend, written
> by Thomas J. Stanley the author of "The Millionaire Next Door".
> In his new book, "The Millionaire Mind", Stanley surveyed over a
> thousand millionaires and found that most were B and C students and had an
> average SAT score of 1190. In fact, most of the millionaires would not
> have qualified for admission to most of the top academic institutions.
> Quoting from the book, "I find no correlation between SAT scores,
> grade-point averages and economic achievement. None." says Stanley.
> And I say, "Keep learning, keep an open mind, and thank you for
> taking an interest in your own financial education."
|| View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ||
FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives is maintained with WebBBS 3.11.
| PLEASE READ THIS LEGAL NOTICE CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU FILE A LAWSUIT OR EVEN WASTE TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. It has been done before, but never successfully. In fact, the last dodobird who tried it ended up being ordered to pay more than $77,000 in attorney fees ($65,000+ to my attorneys and $12,000+ to my co-defendant's legal advisor).
If your attorney is worth his salt, he's going to tell you that the expense of filing a lawsuit you can't win is a whole lot worse than any "damages" resulting from messages posted on this insignificant little chunk of cyberspace.
NEWS FLASH: I didn't just climb down off that ol' turnip truck yesterday. I'm well aware that expressing a negative opinion, relating one's personal experience, and restating provable facts are all legal in this country and do not constitute libel, slander, or defamation -- so you don't want to play games with me, and you sure don't want to start something you aren't prepared to finish. I don't take threats lightly, and I don't accept bribes (or did you call it a "mutually-beneficial arrangement"?). I'll turn you in faster than you can yell, "ARREST ME, I'M SCUM!!"
Do yourself a favor and turn your legal team loose in greener pastures.
Although we may, from time to time, monitor or review discussions, postings and the like on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, we are under no obligation to do so. We are not responsible or liable for any claim arising from the content of any such discussions or postings or for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information contained within such locations on the Site.
You are prohibited from posting or transmitting any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, scandalous, inflammatory, pornographic, or profane materials or any material that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any law. You are likewise prohibited from posting any false claims against any company or individual. We will fully cooperate with any law enforcement authorities or court order requesting or directing us to disclose the identity of anyone posting any such information or materials.
By posting messages and/or content on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, you give permission for Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications to display, distribute and use the posting and content for publication, advertising, promotion, excerption or example. You grant Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications complete, perpetual, but non-exclusive rights to use, archive, reproduce, adapt, modify, distribute, sub-license, repurpose, rework, compile, or offer for sale or resale the messages, postings or content appearing on this site in whole or in part, throughout the world and universe, on a royalty-free basis without remuneration. If you cannot accept or agree with the terms of service for this website and discussion board, you are advised not to post on this board.
In closing, I would like to remind you once again that it is still legal, in this great country of ours, to express a PERSONAL OPINION, as long as it is presented as opinion and not as fact.
And finally, all you scammers out there will do well to remember that TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE against charges of libel, defamation, and slander... so if you're operating just a hop, skip, and jump ahead of the law, you might want to think twice before doing anything stupid... (AND SHAME ON YOU!!).