Comments on: Amazing Response to Last Week’s Party Post!

By: Internet Marketing Singapore

Internet Marketing Singapore — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:33:09 +0000

It was a great post with 192 ‘Freaking Comments’! Keep it up Paul.

By: Suzanne Bird-Harris

Suzanne Bird-Harris — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:00:29 +0000

Paul,

Let me chime in with my admiration for you taking a public stance, doing so with integrity and not apologizing for your views. We don’t all have to see things the same way, but we do have to respect each others views even (and particularly) when we do not agree. For me, there is little else you could have done to gain my respect and loyalty.

Another great benefit for us, your readers, is that you let us know a more personal side of you. I think we all want to do business and learn from those we not only admire, but can relate to, and your recent posts have gone a LONG way toward both.

Suzanne

By: Adam Thompson

Adam Thompson — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:11:40 +0000

Paul, as I commented on the original post, your no-nonsense stance for morality has made a subscriber out of me.

I do appreciate that you clarified that you were not attacking the integrity of the various marketers involved, though I never thought that you were trying to do that. I may not agree with someone’s personal moral standards, but unless they are being dishonest about it, that doesn’t make them a person of low integrity.

I look forward to more great business tools.

~Adam
Explode The Net!

By: Jennifer Knox

Jennifer Knox — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:46:35 +0000

What has disturbed me the most is the way in which this was marketed. The original sales letter was the most filthy thing I have ever seen in my ten years of Internet marketing and I can’t believe that some of these people put their photo and testimonial on it.

Beyond the way this has made female marketers feel, there is also the issue that there were likely many underage recipients of this promotion. Due to the low barrier to entry in starting an Internet business, many teens are involved in this industry and likely received this email as well. How would some of these marketers as parents like for their children to receive smut like this just for joining an Internet marketing newsletter?!

The participation of those who are associated with this fiasco was short-sighted. It’s too bad that the good and decent reputations of many of those who have been involved will be tainted by something so stupid. Just goes to show you that if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas!

By: www.mikeperl.com

www.mikeperl.com — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:49:46 +0000

Paul,

I’m going to the Mansion, in fact I bought the “Golden Ticket”, with in 15 minutes of the salesletter being released.

Now with that being said, I’m fairly new to your blog, and I think you give GREAT content, and I enjoy your tips and ideas.

I’ve read quite a few coments from your post, and I must say, I DO NOT agree with many of them…at all! (which is fine, we can agree, to disagree)

BUT, I do give YOU BIG KUDOS and RESPECT, Paul, for taking a stand and building a relationship with your audience.

I will look forward to reading your future posts…

My two cents…America is Amazing, because we can CHOOSE to have opposing views, and still respect wach other. (vanilla vs chocolate)

Thanks for letting me offer my view,

Mike Perl
Americas Foreclosure Expert

By: Prof David

Prof David — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:40:02 +0000

I think porn should be removed from the web, but sadly it never will be.

By: Viviane

Viviane — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:31:54 +0000

There is no doubt that the choice of venue for this “charity event” was in poor taste.

That so many put their stamp of approval on this event by electing to participate is disturbing. But what is truly shocking is how they chose to cloak their attendance: charity, of course, and (by far my favorite) … a unique NETWORKING opportunity!!!

On second thought, I can’t imagine better staging for ‘networking’ than Hugh Hefner’s pad. I am just having trouble figuring out exactly where female internet marketers would fit in this picture. I guess they were never meant to ‘network’ - or at least not on a level plane.

Here’s hoping that most of you will have enough sensitivity to spare us the excuses. Enough said already … just do us all a favor and put a lid on it!

By: Cecilia

Cecilia — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:51:36 +0000

Hi Paul
From the comments on your previous post about RJ’s party it is heartening to know that there are still lots of people in the world who will take a stand on moral issues when it comes to matters affecting our families.
My question to you is how to make Google remove disgusting nude pornograhic images from its search database. Recently I was researching on the topic of ginger root and I wanted an image so when I keyed in ginger, the first image that came up was a totally naked lady named ‘ginger’. If this is so freely available what will it invoke in the minds of young children. I am not a prude by any means but my first thought was of my young daughter being exposed to these images before she is ready. Surely there must be a way for Google to separate these images from those used by children and non-pornographic users

Cecilia

By: Guru Granny

Guru Granny — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:31:39 +0000

One of the major “biggies” about this, (and YES, I was invited) is it practically screams “No women allowed”. This entire thing is so sexist, that I unsubscribed from several lists because of it.

I, too, am a Christian, but that’s beside the point. This goes WAY beyond religious morals, and points in fact to the ‘backtracking’ our society is moving towards, in relation to its respect of women.

I don’t know any female marketers who would attend, and if they did, would feel they could confess it to their customers and subscribers. As I said above, this blatently says that women marketers don’t count.

By: Bud

Bud — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:08:22 +0000

Playboy magazine and its related enterprises has done the most harm of any of the so-called “adult” industries (hows that phrase for marketing misuse?). Why? It mainstreamed the idea of the “Playboy” who lives his own life, and isn’t burdened by conventional morality or responsibilities.

It played the “good cop” to the “bad cop” of Hustler and other hard core magazines. While everyone argued over the pictures in Playboy being too revealing, they neglected the much joked about articles that promoted the Playboy way of life.

Far from being “liberal” in the real sense of that word, Playboy has led the way in the enslavement of people to their lower natures. For the same reason parents train children not to suck their thumbs, healthy societies train people to transcend their lower natures to achieve the higher purpose they were made for.

This is the essence of the Christian position. We were made for something higher than indulging our lower passions. We were made in the image of God.