Gregg wrote:good faith arguments of his own.
If Dooly's arguments were made in good faith, I guess you'd have a point. They're not, however. The guy's a pimp, like Cook and Clements and others. If they told the truth - even in an MLM that's not an outright ponzi, the odds of you making a dime are slim - they'd be out of a job. They'd be here with us on Q, or with our friends on RealScam, and nobody pays us to do this.
I take it that you are speaking of your exchange with Dooly in the comments of this blog entry
. Especially since we were lambasting Zeek before it was shut down and he was defending it, Dooly can't back off completely. So he half-assed defends them:
(1) Just the title of the blog entry - "Breaking Zeek Rewards News: SRN Denton To Represent Zeek Affiliates United Against What is Believed to be Unlawful Action by the SEC" - is inaccurate in numerous ways, and he has done nothing to change it. Denton does not represent the affiliates, let alone "affiliates united". Who
believes the SEC action was unlawful - the ponzi promoters? There's an unbiased source. Certainly not the Court, which ordered the receivership
(2) "So far this group of affiliates is around 5000 strong and growing from reviewing their website.... Robert Craddock, explained that early this next week the lawfirm of SNR Denton will release a press release notifying the Rex Venture Group, LLC receiver they are representing this group of Zeek Affiliates". Outright bullshit, as we have seen.
(3) From Dooly's comment to you, as of this writing "1 day ago": "Just because a person made money doesn't mean they were purposely doing anything illegal." As you recognized, that's not the standard. Part of the job of the receiver is to assure, to the extent possible, that the pain is shared equally, even given no culpability in the fraud. Dooly may not have realized this - but then why does he post as though he knows the law? Why, because he's an "MLM expert". Self-proclaimed, of course.
(4) From the same comment: "Especially since this is just a complaint and the SEC has not had to defend their position in a court of law." Where does this nitwit think the receivership order came from? Hint, Troy: a court of law.
(5) From the same comment: "Do you not feel there needs to be a day in court in order for those effected to not know for sure if the SEC complaint can be defended or not?" As you write, this is about as ignorant as a comment can get.
(6) After you correct him, Dooly still insists on ignorance, likely because he can't afford to admit that he is wrong about, well, everything: "But, allegations are not judicial rulings, and all complaints from any regulatory body can be questioned in open court by any citizen of the USA. Heck from anyone for that matter." Wrong, wrong, wrong.
(7) In his final paragraph, Dooly proves that he has not understood a word you wrote: "Now I agree 100% that all folks who donate to this lawsuit need to be added officially if at all possible". Your whole (quite correct) point was that it's not possible
, because the losers and the winners have irreconcilably opposed interests. Once you explained it, that shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Dooly just doesn't want to, because it reinforces just how badly the little guys - the folks he was supposedly looking out for - were fleeced.
The guy's a shill - maybe a more open shill than others, but still a shill. He waxes indignant over how Zeek only paid him about $20K in reimbursed expenses for speaking at their conferences. But the point is that he spoke at their conferences
. That's how these guys get their exposure, so people will subscribe to their "newsletters" and buy their crap. What's he gonna say now: "Yeah, I helped to promote a ponzi, but you should trust me anyway"?