It would be a bribe if the initial opinion of the reader was negative, but the reader was swayed by some incentive to post a posative review. So, since the opinions were origionaly posative and didn’t need to be swayed, it could not have been a bribe.
The readers were only motivated to post their posative opinions, not change a negative opinion to a posative one.
Where is the ethical conundrum?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It would be a bribe if the initial opinion of the reader was negative, but the reader was swayed by some incentive to post a posative review. So, since the opinions were origionaly posative and didn’t need to be swayed, it could not have been a bribe.
The readers were only motivated to post their posative opinions, not change a negative opinion to a posative one.
Where is the ethical conundrum?
[/quote]
How can you possibly state this catagorically? Maybe that was the case with you, but you certainly can’t make a blanket statement of fact that some who responded did so only for the reward.
[quote]fahd wrote:
This is becoming is stupid thread, who are we to decide what is moral and whats not.
Lets agree to disagree
Fahd[/quote]
I know it was rhetorical, but that is just too easy. We(being each and every person, not just the folks on this thread) are the ones who act on these decisions.
When you make a decision, then act on it, that action based on that decision will be either a moral or an immoral action. Examining the decision making process behind an action is a good way to keep your moral compass pointing north.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
It would be a bribe if the initial opinion of the reader was negative, but the reader was swayed by some incentive to post a posative review. So, since the opinions were origionaly posative and didn’t need to be swayed, it could not have been a bribe.
The readers were only motivated to post their posative opinions, not change a negative opinion to a posative one.
Where is the ethical conundrum?
How can you possibly state this catagorically? Maybe that was the case with you, but you certainly can’t make a blanket statement of fact that some who responded did so only for the reward.[/quote]
I didn’t. Where did you get that?
This post was to address the debate of what is or is not a bribe. Since they were not motivated to change their opinion, only to express it, then it is not a bribe.
And again: Pussies!
I have no ethics? Oh yes, I do!
Just not the kindergarden, 7th heaven, talk-is-cheap kind of version you all seem to think is the only one possible.
What part of " I don?t lie to customers and I never broke a deal first" did you not understand?
Go out there and find someone who promises you that he will make you live in a sugar-coated la-la-land, where eveything is fair and is held up to the highest moral standards…
Oh wait, there are millions of those people promising you just that, while emptying your pockets or asking for your vote…
I can hear the bewildered sheepish sounds some of you make all the way over the Atlantic…
[quote]orion wrote:
And again: Pussies!
I have no ethics? Oh yes, I do!
Just not the kindergarden, 7th heaven, talk-is-cheap kind of version you all seem to think is the only one possible.
What part of " I don?t lie to customers and I never broke a deal first" did you not understand?
Go out there and find someone who promises you that he will make you live in a sugar-coated la-la-land, where eveything is fair and is held up to the highest moral standards…
Oh wait, there are millions of those people promising you just that, while emptying your pockets or asking for your vote…
I can hear the bewildered sheepish sounds some of you make all the way over the Atlantic…
[/quote]
That’s moronic
Sink as low as you want and justify it because others do it that way?
What isn’t fuckin’ kindergarten about that. Well Jimmy picks his nose and eats it…
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
It would be a bribe if the initial opinion of the reader was negative, but the reader was swayed by some incentive to post a posative review. So, since the opinions were origionaly posative and didn’t need to be swayed, it could not have been a bribe.
The readers were only motivated to post their posative opinions, not change a negative opinion to a posative one.
Where is the ethical conundrum?
How can you possibly state this catagorically? Maybe that was the case with you, but you certainly can’t make a blanket statement of fact that some who responded did so only for the reward.
I didn’t. Where did you get that?
This post was to address the debate of what is or is not a bribe. Since they were not motivated to change their opinion, only to express it, then it is not a bribe.[/quote]
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of us know what a bribe is. Once again. without know ing the thought process of each individual who responded, your ‘definition’ is meaningless to the thread.
[quote]orion wrote:
And again: Pussies!
I have no ethics? Oh yes, I do!
Just not the kindergarden, 7th heaven, talk-is-cheap kind of version you all seem to think is the only one possible.
What part of " I don?t lie to customers and I never broke a deal first" did you not understand?
Go out there and find someone who promises you that he will make you live in a sugar-coated la-la-land, where eveything is fair and is held up to the highest moral standards…
Oh wait, there are millions of those people promising you just that, while emptying your pockets or asking for your vote…
I can hear the bewildered sheepish sounds some of you make all the way over the Atlantic…
[/quote]
WTF is the point of this?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of us know what a bribe is. Once again. without know ing the thought process of each individual who responded, your ‘definition’ is meaningless to the thread.[/quote]
You are only fairly sure? Not absolutely certain? Looks like your opinion on application is as good as mine.
And since you don’tknow the thought process of the respondents, your criticism of the definition is also meaningless.
Aside from the fact that the definition was open for debate for several pages-
Sassy, It is clear that you have an axe to grind with me as your responses in other threads and this one have shown.
What you don’t realize is that I don’t give crap. Your little crituques of my opinions are meaningless. You can continue to do so until you are blue in the face, but the only thing that is going to change is the color of your face.
Have fun!
[quote]fahd wrote:
WTF is the point of this?[/quote]
Well, first of all it entertains me…
Then, I really question the real-world experience of people that are desperately trying to find something unethical about all this…
Last but not least, whenever the “I am holier than thou”- crowd brings their crosses and torches out I just feel the need to emphasize that I smoke weed like a choo-choo train, might have visited one or two brothels and that I?m not above brib…, um, financially motivating some eastern Europeans customs officer…
Fahd, I hope this helps…
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
To chime in late:
I don’t like what he did. If he didn’t think it was such a morally iffy thing, why not just start a thread here to all readers of this site? Why the personal PM’s or e-mails? Why, because I think he knew that, at the very least, he was way pushing the envelope.[/quote]
The email was sent out to a list of individuals that either have the book or have indicated some form familiarity with the book’s material (meaning they’ve signed up for S2B related material we’ve put out). What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that this (the list that was emailed) is the specific target audience that should be spoken to as they’re, once again, the individuals that are familiar with the material and not just John’s name / other works. Therefore, these are the individuals, the only individuals that is, that can speak to whether the book is quality or not.
This is the imperative point that once again is seemingly missed time and time again on this thread and others. The goal of the email was not to boost John’s ego or overwhelm Amazon (or any other site) with positive subjective appraisal. On the contrary, the point was to motivate those who liked the book to post their objective reviews so others wouldn’t be discouraged from picking up S2B b/c of the clearly unfounded negative claims that had been made. These claims being
“This book suggests doing dangerous and advanced powerlifting moves” - 1 star given
“It is mainly for someone who can survive on supplements or soup” - 2 stars given
“the routines and guidelines are very hard to do and you would look silly doing them anywhere people are present” - 2 stars
Clearly these claims reside deeply within the realm of absurdity and yet they were going unchecked because people aren’t intrinsically motivated to post positive reviews the same way they are to post negative reviews. When you purchase something and you’re happy with it, you feel satisfied. Conversely, when you purchase something and it isn’t up to standard, you get pissed. When someone is pissed, they make a whole lot more noise than they do when they’re satisfied.
Furthermore, we’ve received hundreds of positive reviews via email (from the list that was then emailed the message nonetheless) which falls in line with the psychology. When individuals are pissed they want to tell the world; when they’re pleased, they want to express their appreciation personally. Personal expressions of gratitude are great for the author (or whomever is being praised) but they do nothing for the masses. Amazon is for the masses and thus, the point of the email was to get the positive feedback we’ve received via email out to, again, the masses.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the offering of a book chapter was not to sway opinion (I’m dismayed on several levels how one could interpret this as the goal) but rather to thank individuals for their time in going out of their way to post their objective thoughts (by objective I mean that they’re basing their reviews specifically on the merits of the book and not personal opinion of the authors). The bottom line is that the intent was not to quiet intelligent negative reviews or to change negative views to positive ones. It rather was to simply to give a spark to those that were left satisfied by the material to say so.
To get back to your incorrect assertion, had we posted the message to the general public, the effect of what we were trying to achieve would’ve been undermined by mass appeal rather than critical analysis of the material. Let’s face it, given John’s following here on t-mag, the positive reviews would’ve likely been in the thousands instead of a hundred or so. This would’ve been awesome for book sales but a number of the people posting wouldn’t be posting informed reviews (positive or otherwise) given their unfamiliarity with the material. We only want individuals with informed (meaning they read the book) opinions to comment on it.
Let me state that again because it seems to be the point where people are getting lost between what’s a bribe and what’s a token of appreciation. Had we posted on a public forum such as t-mag we undoubtedly would’ve been soliciting reviews from those that hadn’t purchased the book. Had they gone ahead and posted reviews they would’ve done so either to “help Dr. Berardi out” (remember, we didn’t start this thread) or to cash in on the book chapter, or both. In this scenario, assuming the latter case was the motivation, yes one could argue the book chapter was motivation to form an opinion. This isn’t what we did however. What we did was appeal to those that we knew already had opinions on the material and a book chapter isn’t going to change their opinion. What it does is motivate them to share their thoughts. Again a big difference between giving someone something so that they’ll form an opinion and giving them something for sharing an opinion they already had.
Carter Schoffer
Head of Sports Nutrition and Performance
Science Link Inc
Carter Schoffer, after making absolute sense I think you left out:
“The End”.
[quote]Carter Schoffer wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To chime in late:
I don’t like what he did. If he didn’t think it was such a morally iffy thing, why not just start a thread here to all readers of this site? Why the personal PM’s or e-mails? Why, because I think he knew that, at the very least, he was way pushing the envelope.
The email was sent out to a list of individuals that either have the book or have indicated some form familiarity with the book’s material (meaning they’ve signed up for S2B related material we’ve put out). What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that this (the list that was emailed) is the specific target audience that should be spoken to as they’re, once again, the individuals that are familiar with the material and not just John’s name / other works. Therefore, these are the individuals, the only individuals that is, that can speak to whether the book is quality or not.
This is the imperative point that once again is seemingly missed time and time again on this thread and others. The goal of the email was not to boost John’s ego or overwhelm Amazon (or any other site) with positive subjective appraisal. On the contrary, the point was to motivate those who liked the book to post their objective reviews so others wouldn’t be discouraged from picking up S2B b/c of the clearly unfounded negative claims that had been made. These claims being
“This book suggests doing dangerous and advanced powerlifting moves” - 1 star given
“It is mainly for someone who can survive on supplements or soup” - 2 stars given
“the routines and guidelines are very hard to do and you would look silly doing them anywhere people are present” - 2 stars
Clearly these claims reside deeply within the realm of absurdity and yet they were going unchecked because people aren’t intrinsically motivated to post positive reviews the same way they are to post negative reviews. When you purchase something and you’re happy with it, you feel satisfied. Conversely, when you purchase something and it isn’t up to standard, you get pissed. When someone is pissed, they make a whole lot more noise than they do when they’re satisfied.
Furthermore, we’ve received hundreds of positive reviews via email (from the list that was then emailed the message nonetheless) which falls in line with the psychology. When individuals are pissed they want to tell the world; when they’re pleased, they want to express their appreciation personally. Personal expressions of gratitude are great for the author (or whomever is being praised) but they do nothing for the masses. Amazon is for the masses and thus, the point of the email was to get the positive feedback we’ve received via email out to, again, the masses.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the offering of a book chapter was not to sway opinion (I’m dismayed on several levels how one could interpret this as the goal) but rather to thank individuals for their time in going out of their way to post their objective thoughts (by objective I mean that they’re basing their reviews specifically on the merits of the book and not personal opinion of the authors). The bottom line is that the intent was not to quiet intelligent negative reviews or to change negative views to positive ones. It rather was to simply to give a spark to those that were left satisfied by the material to say so.
To get back to your incorrect assertion, had we posted the message to the general public, the effect of what we were trying to achieve would’ve been undermined by mass appeal rather than critical analysis of the material. Let’s face it, given John’s following here on t-mag, the positive reviews would’ve likely been in the thousands instead of a hundred or so. This would’ve been awesome for book sales but a number of the people posting wouldn’t be posting informed reviews (positive or otherwise) given their unfamiliarity with the material. We only want individuals with informed (meaning they read the book) opinions to comment on it.
Let me state that again because it seems to be the point where people are getting lost between what’s a bribe and what’s a token of appreciation. Had we posted on a public forum such as t-mag we undoubtedly would’ve been soliciting reviews from those that hadn’t purchased the book. Had they gone ahead and posted reviews they would’ve done so either to “help Dr. Berardi out” (remember, we didn’t start this thread) or to cash in on the book chapter, or both. In this scenario, assuming the latter case was the motivation, yes one could argue the book chapter was motivation to form an opinion. This isn’t what we did however. What we did was appeal to those that we knew already had opinions on the material and a book chapter isn’t going to change their opinion. What it does is motivate them to share their thoughts. Again a big difference between giving someone something so that they’ll form an opinion and giving them something for sharing an opinion they already had.
Carter Schoffer
Head of Sports Nutrition and Performance
Science Link Inc
[/quote]
Amen!!..Thank you…I think you should run for office…
[quote]SUPERUNKNOWN wrote:
Carter Schoffer, after making absolute sense I think you left out:
“The End”.[/quote]
Agreed, I don’t even see how there was a debate about this in the first place. JB was simply doing some extra work to promote his book, there is nothing immoral about trying to make a living.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of us know what a bribe is. Once again. without know ing the thought process of each individual who responded, your ‘definition’ is meaningless to the thread.
You are only fairly sure? Not absolutely certain? Looks like your opinion on application is as good as mine.
And since you don’tknow the thought process of the respondents, your criticism of the definition is also meaningless.
Aside from the fact that the definition was open for debate for several pages-
Sassy, It is clear that you have an axe to grind with me as your responses in other threads and this one have shown.
What you don’t realize is that I don’t give crap. Your little crituques of my opinions are meaningless. You can continue to do so until you are blue in the face, but the only thing that is going to change is the color of your face.
Have fun!
[/quote]
I don’t even know who you are. I don’t ever remember grinding any axe. Feel free to point me to the many threads I have had any issues with you and I will accept this boatload of garbage as reasonable.
Do it here for all to see. If you want to come up here and post nonsense–prove it show me.
[quote]Carter Schoffer wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
To chime in late:
I don’t like what he did. If he didn’t think it was such a morally iffy thing, why not just start a thread here to all readers of this site? Why the personal PM’s or e-mails? Why, because I think he knew that, at the very least, he was way pushing the envelope.
The email was sent out to a list of individuals that either have the book or have indicated some form familiarity with the book’s material (meaning they’ve signed up for S2B related material we’ve put out). What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that this (the list that was emailed) is the specific target audience that should be spoken to as they’re, once again, the individuals that are familiar with the material and not just John’s name / other works. Therefore, these are the individuals, the only individuals that is, that can speak to whether the book is quality or not.
This is the imperative point that once again is seemingly missed time and time again on this thread and others. The goal of the email was not to boost John’s ego or overwhelm Amazon (or any other site) with positive subjective appraisal. On the contrary, the point was to motivate those who liked the book to post their objective reviews so others wouldn’t be discouraged from picking up S2B b/c of the clearly unfounded negative claims that had been made. These claims being
“This book suggests doing dangerous and advanced powerlifting moves” - 1 star given
“It is mainly for someone who can survive on supplements or soup” - 2 stars given
“the routines and guidelines are very hard to do and you would look silly doing them anywhere people are present” - 2 stars
Clearly these claims reside deeply within the realm of absurdity and yet they were going unchecked because people aren’t intrinsically motivated to post positive reviews the same way they are to post negative reviews. When you purchase something and you’re happy with it, you feel satisfied. Conversely, when you purchase something and it isn’t up to standard, you get pissed. When someone is pissed, they make a whole lot more noise than they do when they’re satisfied.
Furthermore, we’ve received hundreds of positive reviews via email (from the list that was then emailed the message nonetheless) which falls in line with the psychology. When individuals are pissed they want to tell the world; when they’re pleased, they want to express their appreciation personally. Personal expressions of gratitude are great for the author (or whomever is being praised) but they do nothing for the masses. Amazon is for the masses and thus, the point of the email was to get the positive feedback we’ve received via email out to, again, the masses.
Finally, it needs to be made clear that the offering of a book chapter was not to sway opinion (I’m dismayed on several levels how one could interpret this as the goal) but rather to thank individuals for their time in going out of their way to post their objective thoughts (by objective I mean that they’re basing their reviews specifically on the merits of the book and not personal opinion of the authors). The bottom line is that the intent was not to quiet intelligent negative reviews or to change negative views to positive ones. It rather was to simply to give a spark to those that were left satisfied by the material to say so.
To get back to your incorrect assertion, had we posted the message to the general public, the effect of what we were trying to achieve would’ve been undermined by mass appeal rather than critical analysis of the material. Let’s face it, given John’s following here on t-mag, the positive reviews would’ve likely been in the thousands instead of a hundred or so. This would’ve been awesome for book sales but a number of the people posting wouldn’t be posting informed reviews (positive or otherwise) given their unfamiliarity with the material. We only want individuals with informed (meaning they read the book) opinions to comment on it.
Let me state that again because it seems to be the point where people are getting lost between what’s a bribe and what’s a token of appreciation. Had we posted on a public forum such as t-mag we undoubtedly would’ve been soliciting reviews from those that hadn’t purchased the book. Had they gone ahead and posted reviews they would’ve done so either to “help Dr. Berardi out” (remember, we didn’t start this thread) or to cash in on the book chapter, or both. In this scenario, assuming the latter case was the motivation, yes one could argue the book chapter was motivation to form an opinion. This isn’t what we did however. What we did was appeal to those that we knew already had opinions on the material and a book chapter isn’t going to change their opinion. What it does is motivate them to share their thoughts. Again a big difference between giving someone something so that they’ll form an opinion and giving them something for sharing an opinion they already had.
Carter Schoffer
Head of Sports Nutrition and Performance
Science Link Inc
[/quote]
But, BUT, you offered to reward them for a positive review.
You show three poor references and that is suppose to make it ok. Fine. Good. You obviously have no problem with what you did.
Had you come on to the site and asked a group if they read it and liked it to respond in kind–no problem. That’s not what you did.
Your claim that those poor reviews were unfounded is classless. They, just like the people you bribed to answer your way, are entitled to their opinion. Many great works of art have gotten poor reviews and stillstood the test of time. Maybe it’s a common practice. To that I can not speak.
This is my opinion and I’m quite entitled to it.
No one is questioning your right or entitlement to an opinion. It’s great that you feel qualified to make it and that you stand behind it.
Likewise, no one is questioning the right of any person to comment on anything I’ve done, am doing, or will ever do.
This isn’t a free speech issue - no one’s tried to restrict anyone’s freedoms. So let’s not make it about that.
However, with respect to the amazon reviews, as a good friend of mine once said, just because everyone is entitled to an opinion, doesn’t mean everyone is qualified to give it.
And I might add the caveat that just because everyone has the right to an opinion, their opinions need not be equally weighted in the public.
Seriously, here are the three statements…
a) S2B contains powerlifting moves that are dangerous
b) The dietary advice in S2B revolves around supplements and soup
c) S2B, a program centred on the big three (squats, deads, bench press), is full of exercises that would look silly to do in the gym
Do these represent the your thoughts on exercise and nutrition. (I hope to God you say no). Can you imagine they even represent the thoughts of even 1% the literate populace?
Think what you want of me. But these opinions have a right to be said. They also have a right to be refuted and to be buried in the dark recesses of the web - never to be read by thinking individuals.
Constructive criticism or criticism based on objective facts only helps me get better.
Soup!? There’s no freakin soup in the entire book. And weight lifting is weight lifting. It doesn’t look silly when done in gyms - which is where I recommend doing it.
This is nonsense of the highest order and if you could possibly stand behind these specific droolings of the irrational minority, you might need to register at another forum, brotha.
If you don’t stand behind that sort of thing - cool! The simple fact that you’re here tells me that you probably don’t!
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I don’t even know who you are. I don’t ever remember grinding any axe. Feel free to point me to the many threads I have had any issues with you and I will accept this boatload of garbage as reasonable.
Do it here for all to see. If you want to come up here and post nonsense–prove it show me.
[/quote]
If you think for a second that you are even remotely entiltled to have me prove something to you, then you are sadly mistaken.
What is here for all to see is a reiteration of my thoughts on the ethical debate by the person who carried out the campaign.
What is it about this type of thinking that bothers you so much?
(actualy that is rhetorical, but you may want to ponder it for a moment)
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I don’t even know who you are. I don’t ever remember grinding any axe. Feel free to point me to the many threads I have had any issues with you and I will accept this boatload of garbage as reasonable.
Do it here for all to see. If you want to come up here and post nonsense–prove it show me.
If you think for a second that you are even remotely entiltled to have me prove something to you, then you are sadly mistaken.
What is here for all to see is a reiteration of my thoughts on the ethical debate by the person who carried out the campaign.
What is it about this type of thinking that bothers you so much?
(actualy that is rhetorical, but you may want to ponder it for a moment)
[/quote]
So you’re free to lie! If you don’t hold yourself to any standards of decency then it most certainly is my right to ask you to prove what you say is in fact the truth.
I’ve possibly had a difference of opinion with you on a previous post, but show me where this would be retribution from some previous crap.
Your thought process doesn’t bother me at all. Your stance on this thread does not matter to me one bit. Everyone is entitled to it, even though Mr. Berardi feels some are entitled to have their opinion weighted more. I can live with that as well.
But, when you come up here and say my opinion is slighted because of some past that doesn’;t exist I call crap. Now back it up or move on.
[quote]John M Berardi wrote:
No one is questioning your right or entitlement to an opinion. It’s great that you feel qualified to make it and that you stand behind it.
Likewise, no one is questioning the right of any person to comment on anything I’ve done, am doing, or will ever do.
This isn’t a free speech issue - no one’s tried to restrict anyone’s freedoms. So let’s not make it about that.
However, with respect to the amazon reviews, as a good friend of mine once said, just because everyone is entitled to an opinion, doesn’t mean everyone is qualified to give it.
And I might add the caveat that just because everyone has the right to an opinion, their opinions need not be equally weighted in the public.
Seriously, here are the three statements…
a) S2B contains powerlifting moves that are dangerous
b) The dietary advice in S2B revolves around supplements and soup
c) S2B, a program centred on the big three (squats, deads, bench press), is full of exercises that would look silly to do in the gym
Do these represent the your thoughts on exercise and nutrition. (I hope to God you say no). Can you imagine they even represent the thoughts of even 1% the literate populace?
Think what you want of me. But these opinions have a right to be said. They also have a right to be refuted and to be buried in the dark recesses of the web - never to be read by thinking individuals.
Constructive criticism or criticism based on objective facts only helps me get better.
Soup!? There’s no freakin soup in the entire book. And weight lifting is weight lifting. It doesn’t look silly when done in gyms - which is where I recommend doing it.
This is nonsense of the highest order and if you could possibly stand behind these specific droolings of the irrational minority, you might need to register at another forum, brotha.
If you don’t stand behind that sort of thing - cool! The simple fact that you’re here tells me that you probably don’t!
[/quote]
That last part is a cheap shot not worthy of you.
I agree that the criticism is unjust. I have read enough of your stuff, and in fact you have been quite helpful to me. You filled in alot of blanks in my nutritional field. Thank you.
That is not to say that I can’t disagree with the actions taken.
Why you choose to drop to the gutter, brotha, in your posting is telling. Maybe you’re just fed up and wish it would die. I would agree with that.
Remember, this thread was 4 pages long before I came along, so why you’ve chosen me to put down and be condescending to is a little bewildering. You may not give my opinion any weight. That’s your perogative.
I do however, have a brother-in-law who is published. I did speak with him wrt this subject. So I tried to gain some insight before chiming in.
I’ll end with a thank you once again for your past help with me. This does not change my philisophical belief about your training and nutritional info. Solid stuff.
Regards