Jump to content

Talk:Integrated Management Associates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[untitled section]

[edit]

Man, the Kekich video is laughably boring. There's one lethargic bloke sitting there talking about Neo-Tech in a monotonous tone, and doing nothing but that for 20+ minutes. Truly the best testimony to the great powers of Neo-Tech! Bi 09:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kekich [1] is very wealthy and successful. It's probably worth straining yourself to listen to his advice. If you're just looking for entertainment than maybe you'd better just stick to writting goofy "NeoTex" web pages. RJII 15:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other examples of testimony besides just this Kekich? It seems like any other more positive testimonies seem to be removed, because the last time I was here there were links to testimonials by hundreds of happy readers. How does Wikipedia work? Is only negative information allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodmanFarley (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I guess one can indeed get quite wealthy by selling lists of mailing addresses on the black market or something for spammers to use to spam. And by convincing people that his vapourware companies are actually doing any useful work. Hey, if I just follow his actions instead of his words, I can be rich and boring too! I should try that, really. Bi 19:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selling mailing lists on the black market? What? Companies buy and sell mailing lists all the time. It's not black market. It's a normal part of direct marketing. Are you subscribed to any magazines? Do you have credit cards? Rest assured, they are selling their customer lists. If you don't want your name and address sold, then you need to contact them and tell them that you don't want your information sold. RJII 02:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's indeed part of Kekich's success formula or something? And I notice that the title of kekich.com says "Internet Poker LLC". Is that some kind of cryptic code used by neothinking Zons I wonder? Bi 09:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Kekich is not in the mailing list business. RJII 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I did a bit of looking up on this Kekich guy. He's the President of Red Tree International, and according to this report, was involved in the creation of 3 "blind pool" companies. By the way, the report also says something about "bankruptcy". I'm not sure what it all means, but it's looking good. Bi 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He a venture capitalist. He puts money into, and helps raise money, for new businesses that need start-up capital. A "blind pool" is a corporation where the limited partners who invest do not know exactly what businesses or real estate the general partner is going to invest in, so they are investing based solely on the general partner's track record of turning a profit. It differs from a "specified pool" where the partners evaluate each investment. RJII 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that I know. Now what I don't know yet is what's this Lions Holding Group which (as at 2000) controls 99% of Red Tree. And the meaning of "Internet Poker LLC". Bi 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? Kekich is just a businessman who likes Neo-Tech --obviously he's involved in a lot ventures. Why are you on a witchhunt? RJII 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What witchhunt? I'm not drawing any conclusions -- I'm just trying to find out more facts about this interesting character. Oh, and I didn't know that kekich.com was involved in the spamming business. Dead Link Bi 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure he'd be flattered. While you're at it, buy a mailing list from Integrated Management Associates and research all their customers. RJII 17:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think for myself, thank you very much, and I don't need you to treat me like sheeple and tell me what to do. Isn't Neo-Tech supposed to be pro-individualism?
Oh, so I see that spamming is an integral part -- or should I say Fully Integrated part -- of the Honest Tactics of Neo-Tech folks. It's not just Kekich; apparently there's one Steven O'Keefe who's openly defending the practice of cross-spamming Usenet groups. Welcome to the laissez-faire future!
Do you have proof of this spamming?
Hmm, is there any other Neo-Tech spammer I forgot to flatter? Bi 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the anti-spamming bias? What's wrong with spamming? It's a legitimate business practice. It's no different than paper junk mail arriving in your mail box or getting sales calls on the telephone. It may be annoying, but I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a great way to solicit business. As far as Usenet is concerned, that's not even a private mailbox so what does it matter? Spam away. If you don't like it, then don't read Usenet. Similarly, if you don't like advertisements in magazines, then don't read magazines. RJII 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff writes itself. Bi 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, just for the record... Bi 10:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to seem like a noob, but I have received "the letter" from the Nouveau Tech Society, and I was wondering if my scans of it would enhance this article. I am not too familiar with Wikipedia's rules regarding such things. I have removed my personal information throughout, but have left in their information. I could modify it further to remove their address and phone number. Should I upload the scans and add them to the article? Just last night, I met a woman who was, for lack of a better word, hysterical after receiving the letter from them. I think it would help people searching for answers about this "secret society." Xanax is my FRIEND 05:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. But the main idea is that you shouldn't upload anything which will cause Wikipedia to infringe on copyright -- see Wikipedia:Fair_use. Admins, any clues please? Bi 10:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've done a bottom-up list prune of the external links section to bring the section more inline with Wikipedia:External links. Below is what was removed. - FrancisTyers · 11:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


listen, i purchased the nouveau tech society package of inside secrets, & was satisfied, but my main "beef" with "I&O" is that i received another letter shortly after, "soliciting" some more literature that i sent for and never received. in the letter it was stated that all i had to do was send $90 for s&h but never received the literature. (Redacted)

Citing a criticism of a work as a criticism of a work will not do, one must have knowledge of what one is criticizing for a criticism to be valid. otherwise, it may be difference of opinion, or just an ad hominem, non-sequitur laden pile of hack. and the critic's time could have been better used actually creating values.

Concerning the issue of undue weight

[edit]

For an example of whether a publishing company's publications is "undue weight" ?!? in Wikipedia common practice, see Patriotic Publishing Co.

Pax Neo-Tex bogus feedback represents undue weight to an encyclopedic entry on Integrated Management Associates.

Proper encyclopedic content consists of accurate links to the freely available publications of IMA. I.E. Zonpower publication

— Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, Wikipedia says "don't eat the newcomers", but it's clear you're trying to present yourself as a non-newcomer, so screw that.
You know, you remind me of a certain other Neo-Tech-er on Wikipedia who uses totally ad hoc argumentation (like you), pretends to know what "We The Wikipedian Community" is all about (like you), and then throws a tantrum when "We The Wikipedian Community" doesn't behave according to his dictates. Oh, and he also has a penchant for the typo "irrelevent". See ya. Bi 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the person and ignoring the content constitutes undue weight and other logical falacies. Bogus feedback represents undue weight. Proper encyclopedic content consists of relevant links.

— Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Content"? What "content"? Your "content" is nothing but ad hoc argumentation. There's no need to "ignore" "content" if there's no content in the first place. Good day. Bi 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question on the table is should an encyclopedic entry on Integrated Management Associates include a link to one of its example publications. I.E. Zonpower publication. Many use Wikipedia as a encyclopedic resource (including using it to research Neo-Tech), and it should contain proper content. This is a simple matter of what links are proper and what links are not. Personal attacks notwithstanding and irrelevant; only objective sources are. What is proper content? Zonpower is representative of what IMA publishes, and should be included in this listing.

— Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, let's see how much "content" there is in your latest argument, shall we?
  • The question on the table is should an encyclopedic entry on Integrated Management Associates include a link to one of its example publications. Get this straight: you wanted to put not one, but three, Neo-Tech article links: one to nouveautechsociety dot com, one to localgroup dot net, one to zonpower dot com.
  • Many use Wikipedia as a encyclopedic resource (including using it to research Neo-Tech), and it should contain proper content. Vacuous truism.
  • This is a simple matter of what links are proper and what links are not. Yet another vacuous truism.
  • Personal attacks notwithstanding and irrelevant; only objective sources are. Wow! Three vacuous truisms! Will you believe it!
  • What is proper content? Ah, finally a question that's not so vacuous.
  • Zonpower is representative of what IMA publishes [...] Unfortunately, the very first part of the answer is yet another vacuous truism.
  • [...] and should be included in this listing. Wow, I never! Like a kangaroo, our dear Poet Liar executes a virtuoso leap of logic from the premise to the conclusion!
In summary: "The IMA article should include THREE (3) links to Neo-Tech articles, because I say so!"
By the way, stop trying to linkspam this talk page. Bi 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new here. More personal attacks and subverting the point. I move to banish Bi from Wikipedia for blatant disregard of objective truth. I put forward a formal inquiry into this matter. His attacks are becoming highly offensive, irrevelent, with the intent of at least distorting and at most deleting Neo-Tech listings from Wikipedia. If a new user has any say at all, then I say this.

— Poet Liar Who Always Tells the Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Heck, move however you want. I've already explained above everything I had to explain, demonstrated above everything I had to demonstrate. Bi 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BOOK OFFER!?

[edit]

OK has anyone yet recieved a letter in the mail about being offered some "ancient manuscript" From these guys yet? Well I have and I am really not sure about it. I am very sure there not much associated with freemasontry though in there pamflit they mention someting that relates to it. But I honestly get a really bad Idea out of it. The pamflit just contained a bunch of success stories that lead you to believe something to the effect that if you buy this copy of an "ancient manuscript" you will be "suddenly changed" by a "ten second miracle". ANd what really makes me mad is that someone had came up to the success story people offering it to them strait to there face and I long for something like that to happen to me! And what really tiks me off is that "they" say they know everything about me, BUT THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET MY FIRST NAME RIGHT!! AND IT WAS JUST A SMALL ERROR like typing a G instead of an F because there close togethor but it was clear across the key pad almost!

Well, I did receive a letter. It was very long ago. Bi 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimura

[edit]

Somebody wrote Kimura's philosophy was "fundamentally contradictory to Neo-Tech's tenets." That's not what he says. On Wallace's euology site Kimura wrote: "Dear Rosa Maria, Wallace, Frank, and all the Ward families: It was with profound sadness that I heard the news of Dr. Ward's passing. My deepest condolences to you all. Just yesterday I received an e-mail message from a long-time student of Neo-Tech and it was in his message that I found Dr. Ward's death for the first time. Last year I lost my mother in May at 80 and two of my great mentors in March at 85 and 88, but I was unaware that another great man I had known had already passed away at 73, too young for a man I believed would live easily beyond the age 100. On August 1st, 1987, the day I arrived in the Neo-Tech office in Las Vegas to work, Dr. Ward and I had a phone conversation. He said, 'Yasuhiko, no matter what happens in the future, no matter what happens between us, I would like you to always know that I respect you--your intelligence and character'. Exactly one year later, on July 31, 1988, I left the company. Dr. Ward and I re-connected briefly around 2000 when I was the executive director of The Twilight Club, founded by Herbert Spencer in the late 19th century. Our mutual respect was still apparent. Though philosophically I moved on and developed my own system, integrating Neo-Tech/Randian philosophy into a larger framework, I always remember the exciting times I spent with Dr. Ward and his Neo-Tech family. Hearing the death of Dr. Ward, I now know that not only did I respect him highly but also I loved him deeply. Humanity will miss a great intellect and I will miss a warm loving heart that permeated his intellect and whole being. May his spirited soul soar even higher, for the great soul like his know no rest. Yasuhiko Genku Kimura." [3] I realize that may not be a great source because there is always a chance that someone is impersonating him but I don't think it can be claimed that's it's fundamentally contradictory without a citation. Bridge & Tunnel 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no hard evidence either way, I say let's just leave out any mention of Kimura altogether. Bi 05:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of what? That he wrote the essay? His real name is on the French version. [4] Bridge & Tunnel 03:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still unreliable evidence. Bi 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that unreliable? Someone's name is on a published essay. If it was forged don't you think the publisher would be sued by now? That would be major fraud to use someone else's name to sell a book. Bridge & Tunnel 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Neo-Tech may well be sued in the future. You never know. Why can't you just leave out any mention of Kimura? Why are you so insistent on mentioning him? Bi 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on deleting him? This is notable information. Bridge & Tunnel 06:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to prove that the information is verifiable and notable. Bi 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(uncivil comment removed Bi 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

Should the article state, as a verifiable fact, that Yasuhiko Kimura writes for Neo-Tech by the pen name Ray Kotobuki?

My personal view: no, as the evidence for this is tenuous at best. Please see the above discussion. Bi 06:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's name is stated as the author of a published book or article, that's prima facie accepted evidence that the person wrote that article. Are you prepared to delete the author name of every book and article on Wikipedia because you don't trust that that person really wrote them? Your objection is totally frivolous. Bridge & Tunnel 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prima facie" is not Wikipedia's policy standard. Bi 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(uncivil comment removed Bi 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You're making a frivolous objection and are being disruptive. Apparently you don't know what prima facie means. There is no rule anywhere on Wikipedia that says when a person's name is printed as the author of a published book or article that that is not good enough evidence that they wrote that book or article. Bridge & Tunnel 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, not SCOTUS. "Prima facie" is not Wikipedia's policy standard, period. Bi 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only conclude that you don't know what prima facie means. Bridge & Tunnel 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1968? 1970?

[edit]

Bridge & Tunnel, from where did you source your claim that I & O Publishing began operations in 1968? I've heard lots and lots of rumours to that effect — some say it started in 1968, others say it started in 1970 — but there was nothing reliable. The Better BB page, which Neo-Tech likes to ask us to check, clearly states its "original business start date" is 1992. Bi 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a source from Colby Magazine that said I & O began in 1968. That's easily verifiable if you just look at the publishing dates on the books. Here is the Poker/Neo-Tech I book on Amazon with the publishing date of 1968: [5] The link to the BBB is dead but if they use different names for the company then 1992 would refer to when they started using a particular name rather than how long they have been publishing. Bridge & Tunnel 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One, I don't see any source from Colby Magazine. Two, the entry on amazon.com contains no ISBN number, no book cover image, no nothing — which makes the information very suspect. Three, Neo-Tech clearly claims they have a 35-year record of satisfaction with the BBB; and they don't have any 35-year record with the BBB. Neo-Tech lied. Bi 07:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Colby Magazine source is there. I don't know why it's not showing up in the table. But the same source is in the Frank R. Wallace article so go look at that one. Amazon is reliable for giving the publishing date. Why don't you go to Library of Congress? The Poker book is there, along with other books by Wallace, and it was published in 1968. [6] If I&O published a book in 1968, then you do the math. Have you checked to see if they had a record with the BBB when they were going under the name I&O? I didn't think so. Bridge & Tunnel 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge & Tunnel, the onus is on you to prove that a record for I&O exists in the BBB, not for me to disprove it. Bi 06:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge & Tunnel, you have still failed to prove that a record for I&O exists in the BBB before 1992. Sorry, but an article doesn't include a piece of information just because it "might" be true. Bi 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what in the blazes is the reason for removing any mention of the contents of the complaints of the BBB (i.e. false advertising)? Bi 08:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All businesses are going to have complaints against them. There is nothing notable or interesting about that. You're obviously on a personal crusade to waste your time smearing the company (as is proved by your personal web page dedicated to doing so). If the BBB had said they didn't meet their standard, then that might be interesting. But just the fact that run of the mill complaints have been made against a business, which by the way are not published in anywhere but simply found in the records of the BBB, is not notable at all. Bridge & Tunnel 21:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but apparently the fact that Wallace Ward is a member of Sigma Xi, which any bloke with a PhD can join, counts as notable. Stop the double standards already. Bi 07:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Con artists?

[edit]

Australian Fair Trading Minister Margaret Keech complained, that in some brochures they have mailed to individuals, that they notify those individuals that they are in their target audience because because they share special characteristics and that those those individuals will be eventually "asked for money" to receive books. Because of this, she has called them "con-artists." [7] Is that funny or what? On what planet is it a "con" to let people know they they meet the mailing list criteria to be targeted? And on what planet is it a "con" to ask money for your books? Keech seems a bit clueless on "Fair Trading." It seems like the complaint is just from a lack of understanding of how marketing works. Companies purchase mailing lists tailored to provide lists of people that meet special criteria. Letting customers know they meet special criteria to be targeted is not a "con" in any way, shape, or form. Sure, they make it seem glamorous but so what? It's nonetheless true and helps to attract the customer. One of the great strategies of marketing is to make the customer feel special. The fact that Keech finds it a "con" to "ask for money" is inexplicable. If I owned the company I would be suing Margarat Keech right now for calling the company "con-artists." Bridge & Tunnel 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complain all you like, sue all you like, but that's what she said (according to The Age Online), so into the article it goes. Wikipedia isn't the place to spew your armchair opinions on legal matters. Bi 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take it out. I'd like it to be there simply because it's so funny and shows just how silly the claim is. Bridge & Tunnel 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and apparently you're going to also include the fact that they ask for money after saying the information is "free"? Or no?
And what's the great idea about unilaterally removing the {{npov}} tag? Bi 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of the npov tag was inadvertant. I don't really care whether it's there or not. I don't see the importance of noting that individuals first order free information and then are asked to buy books. What a crime! LOL. But I went ahead and noted that. Bridge & Tunnel 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, I want to know how you "inadvertently" remove an {{npov}} tag. I can't do that even if I try.
And how about the fact that Neo-Tech claims that the "56 page, numbered booklet" "the secrets" are "completely free of charge" — and then this "free of charge" secret is to buy a series of books which are not free of charge?[8] Can you say "bait and switch"? Bi 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bait and switch? How is it bait and switch? The person receives what he requested for free. The person receives a 56 page booklet with "secrets" in it and they receive an advertisement that says if they want more secrets it's going to cost money. No is forced to order books. This seems like normal marketing to me. Bridge & Tunnel 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B&T has been banned for sock puppetry, but just for the record: the "free" secret is precisely to send in money for the actual secrets, nothing else. Bi 11:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I fully agree with that; although the theme of the free booklet is indeed one of salesmanship for the paid volume, all the fundamentals of the philosophy as they are outlined in the paid book are still clearly present in the free book; they just aren't explored in great detail. It may also be somewhat difficult to discern the philosophy from the salesmanship if you haven't actually read the paid volume.

General comments

[edit]

It's hard to make much sense of this article, but I did delete of couple of paragraphs that appeared to be more or less identical to each other, and which appeared to be commentary by a Wikipedia contributor. I'm not sure that the subject of this article is really notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Visions Party

[edit]

So apparently this outfit (or at least Mark Hamilton (writer), which redirects here) is also connected to the "Twelve Visions Party" which run a candidate in the 2013 Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by John Kerry. 121a0012 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integrated_Management_Associates&oldid=1229932341"