siliconwiper.com, if you wish to just post something out for information and refuse to have anybody give their feedback or do any discussions on it, then you are better off just creating a blog on it, and disabling all comments. And even then, this will not stop many other ppl from making links to it and making comments on it from their own blogs either.

at the end of the day, you post out info into a discussion forum, and it gets discussed, and the items of discussions may or may not be to your liking. Its pretty much as simple as that.

Perhaps its the given number of 45 million that casts even more suspicion onto this entire thing in the first place? 45 million per month is 540 million per year. Even Bursa Malaysia Berhad (as in the company running KLSE, not the entire KLSE itself) only has got a revenue of 443 million per year.

The magazine that you had mentioned may not make this up, but do note that they are only reporting what was told to them. There is also the possibility of the person who had informed them of this is making this up.

Come to think of it, can you provide more information about this magazine that you had mentioned here. I'm curious enough about this case now to want to go and check out their article on this, and also wanting to check with them on exactly how much background investigation they had done to verify what they had been told before they had published the article.

Isn't this an advertisement page on the magazine rather than something written by the magazine themselves?

are you not being awfully defensive for somebody who's a mere messenger?

The interesting thing here is that your own statements here can be pretty much applied back at you in return as well. Even more interesting is the fact that there's no one single set rule on the definition of creativity. Hence you idea of creativity may be just mundane to those whom you criticize, exactly like the way you think nothing of their ideas. Of which there's not a single MLM guru that I had encountered who's not stumped when their own arguments are thrown back at them in return, in exactly the same tone, purpose and conviction that it is given out in.

Sure, there's the skeptics on such a system like the one you're promoting here, but the bulk of the people couldn't really care less about it anyways, since they're not fans of Steven's Corner anyways. Not that they've got anything against it, but to them, its just another place to eat among a great many other choices. I'm one of them, and what that had caught my attention about it in the first place is the defensiveness as well as the evasiveness of the one who's doing the promotion out of it.

Even if you're just merely playing the messenger, it sure looks like you're doing a bad job out of it, looking at your own defensiveness when it comes to crunch time.

Like I said, the bulk of ppl just coming by this thread couldn't be even care about this not because they think its a scam, but they've got far better things to do anyways. Furthermore, you as the one giving the promotion's contributing even further to the lack of interest on this as well, seeing by how defensive you get for just a mere messenger.

But tell me anyways, so why are you so defensive over this? I'm really curious to know

Discussions on MLM viability or legality or sustainability are are not banned on LYN, and there had indeed been such threads here. It is the attempt to recruit, to promote, to do referrals for MLM that are banned. Try reading the forum rules properly to note the difference.

I don't know. You tell me. So is this thing here supposed to be a MLM? Simple answer expected. Yes or No.

Actually, this reasoning here is now getting rather pathetic. Ownership of a car is drastically different from the agreement that's being signed here. The more accurate comparison is if you're to sign up on a car loan, and part of the terms states that the bank can change any part of the agreement as they like without consulting you at all, even including how much interest you need to pay on it.

But the key point to note here is not to do with not being able to amend for good or for bad, but its more to do with being able to amend the signed agreement without the need to even consult with those who had paid money into the scheme. Any lawyer will tell you that such is an extremely stupid agreement to sign.

---

Added on August 3, 2008, 9:15 amThe answer to this is obvious. If you've signed an agreement that allows them to change the terms and conditions as they see fit, on what basis have you got to sue them at all?

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 3 2008, 09:15 AM

Nice try at twisting the words. Something that is brilliant for a seller may be dumb for a purchaser. Hence the purpose of lawyers in the first place, to craft a document to the benefit of those who had paid them to do so.

Interesting too about your comment on the buyers amending the details, as the more pressing issue is more of on the owners being able to amend without consulting with the buyers.

So by your own words, this scheme of yours can fall under the category of MLM?

If this is the case, then this thread had just degenerated into a promotion of a F&B outlet. So why is it still doing in the Finance, Business and Investment House section instead of being in Kopitiam?

Correct. You've just killed you earlier point in regards to the 'stupidity' when it comes to the signing of such an agreement just because it is drafted by a lawyer, as it very much depends on the intention of the person hiring the lawyer in the first place.

More to the point now, so what sort of legal protection does a buyer have in this scheme of yours to ensure that the seller is bound to the original points of the agreement, taking into consideration that the agreement grants the seller to change the terms & conditions as they see fit without consulting the buyer?

So in other words, you are now confirming that the wording of the agreement gives the seller the right change the terms of the agreement at any time without consultation with the buyer, including to the point of not needing to abide by the original terms at all?

Furthermore, you are now confirming that due to the above, the seller is rendered immune from any form of legal action from the buyer should the seller does not abide by the original terms due to the fact that the seller can change the terms as they see fit?

And by the way, Devil2 had never at all touched in this aspect of the agreement which is to do with legal protection for the buyer.

Actually no. This is only you attempting to divert from the issue that the agreement as drafted by STG's lawyers offers the buyer totally zero legal protection should STG attempts not to abide by the original agreement points, seeing that the agreement allows them to change the terms and conditions without consultation to the buyer at all.

An attempt to divert from the point here is akin to an attempt to mislead. Clauses like such are something that all potential buyers of anything should watch out for most of all, as its very existence means that something is not right. Scam or no scam, such a clause is still something that should spark alarms right away, and you have got whoever that is responsible for the drafting of the agreement in such a manner to blame for the bad image given here.

Perhaps you are defensive over this because you are involved in some way with STG, or merely because you have signed up as a member of this, but this does not in any way mean that all is well and that everybody should just trust your words merely because you're a member.

To answer your question directly, yes, that is how I do it. I had my own lawyer check through the agreement when I did my property purchase. For my car loan, I did not go to the extend of getting a lawyer, as its more straight forwards. Case in point here is that I make sure that that I have got sufficient legal protection especially in the purchase of property to ensure that the developer does not try anything funny. If there are clauses that states that the developer is allowed to change the terms and conditions as they see fit, then it is a good sign that the entire thing will turn out to be a scam.

Go back and take a good look at your own car or property purchase agreements, and tell me if you can find any clauses in there that states that the seller is allowed to change anything in there without consultation with you.

In short, you are once again attempting to divert from the point here. Sure, all agreements has got terms and conditions. Having terms and conditions is not the problem. The problem is when part of the agreement allows one party to change the original agreed upon T&C as they see fit without even consulting the other party at all. And again as I had mentioned above, this is akin to an attempt to mislead.

Perhaps, but it is also very interesting to take note of the fact that:
1) You've not denied the existence of the clause that allows the seller to change the terms and conditions as they see fit without any form of consultation to the buyer at all
2) You've partially confirmed the existence of this clause when you had stated the following before:

Anyways, the one confirmed advice that I can give to all those who are looking at this scheme:
- Make sure to look through the agreement properly to check for such clauses, and be aware of the implication of such clauses
- Consult with your own lawyer on the implications of such an agreement if necessary

Surely you cannot disagree with this right?

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 5 2008, 11:11 AM

Well, looking at the gov.my as well as the pg.com website, you'll find that there's no obligation to make use of the website, or you'll have to forfeit anything should you first agree then decide not to use it later.

A more similar comparison will be such as Exabytes, where you've already paid an amount of money to them for a term of service. However do take note that the Terms & Conditions of Exabytes does not state anything to do with the type of service that you'll be getting, as that is in the pricing or quotation.

In short, if you've signed up for a plan that provides you with xxx amount of storage, it does not allow them to reduce it in any way at all for during the duration of the plan that you've paid in advance for. They can only do so after the expiry of the term that you've paid in advance for.

So with this in mind, it is up to siliconwiper.com to actually clarify the exact nature of the agreement that is signed here.

So once again, it is up to siliconwiper.com to clarify on this, especially on the part on the ceasing of membership as well as if there's any money back should a person decides to pull out, or will the full amount of money be forfeited permanently upon the signing of the contract.

yes they can, but I was not making a reference to Exabytes with that sentence of mine that you had replied to here.

To be more accurate, Charwarrior did not speculate on this, but was relating an experience told to him by a friend of his:

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=18973384

Note the following:
- the reluctance to even show the document to the potential before receiving the money
- the refusal to allow the potential client to have a copy of the agreement for further legal consultation

This does very much add to the suspicion.

Furthermore I'll have to say that the responses given out so far has been rather slimy, to the extent of refusing to clarify if this is supposed to be a MLM type of business, but preferring to have the details kept secret instead. Do take note that there's totally zero assurance, or even attempts of assurance of proper legal protection for the buyer by those who had been promoting this scheme heavily here as well.

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 6 2008, 11:58 PM

On 1) Take note of the words used. Pay first, then sign, rather than the other way round which is the usual practice.

On 2) Again, take note of the words used. Refusal to part with an unsigned copy for the potential buyer to seek legal consultation before signing. After all, legal consultation won't do much good after the agreement had been signed.


My position on this is the exactly the same as anything to do in regards to everything else. Scam or no scam, should the company in charge of such schemes do not make the attempt to stamp out such practices, then they very much deserve the bad reputation that is attributed to them due to the actions of their workers or agents.

This is the same position that I take for MLM related stuff, or for companies such as those DMAX/Cobra types.

The other thing of note here is that there's totally zero attempts at attempting to clarify if such is an appropriate thing to do or not by those who are promoting this scheme on here. Scam or no scam, this does sound extremely slimy.

Like I had mentioned before, my stand on this is, scam or no scam, it is indeed a red alert sign for any potential buyers to exercise more caution especially when it comes to the legal side of things.

Come to think of it, I've not encountered a successful case of slander against a person who's negative opinion is formed by false or inaccurate or fragmented information presented to them. In fact, what that is more common are some sort of civil suits against those presenting the information in the first place, depending on whatever the lawyers can think up of.

Its as I had said, that these companies themselves are responsible for the bad reputation attributed to them due to the actions of their own people. This is very much different from the legal liability that you are making a reference to.

Out of curiosity, how do you know what Silliconwiper's role is?

@And to Chatwarrior: take note of happy4ever's responses here on what you should be doing to proceed on this should you have actual evidence if this is a scam, or if you wish to clarify with the management of STG on the actions of those promoting on their behalf.

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 7 2008, 01:30 AM

RPK himself had been the one giving out the information that is considered as slanderous by those who had brought the suit against him. Do take note that the suit in this case is brought against RPK, and not against those who had negative impressions of those who initiated the lawsuit against RPK. Hence this is the key difference here.

Chatwarrior's problem is his own. Incidentally, didn't you just come from a discussion in regards to defamation a few days back? Points raised there's pretty much the same as here too.

Your description here differs from the case in point, where the false perception was given not by the slandered party, but by somebody claiming to present information on behalf of the slandered party.

Well, if you're to look at his reply alone, you'll find that there's not a single aspect of his reply that is ever consistent in anything at all.