[TheCDAllenGroup]

Originally Posted by bopa media

If he was involved in taking a company public his name would show up in their database.

Are you really sure of that? Are they any circumstances where his name would not show up?

[bopa media]

Originally Posted by TheCDAllenGroup

Are you really sure of that? Are they any circumstances where his name would not show up?

When filing the paper work to public offering all the board members and upper officals of the company are mentioned, all the pre-offering holders are mentioned and even bankers can be mentioned in the paper work, i've even seen employees who were there get mentioned and many others get mentioned. So unless he was not part of the process (which he's claimed to be, a few times) he would be mentioned if he was taking the company public.

[TheCDAllenGroup]

Originally Posted by roadtoharvard

The proof is in the pudding:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1982669&page=1

I actually watched this back when it originally aired. I think that both ABC [for airing this nonsense] and Robert [for agreeing to contribute to this "contest"] were stupid for doing this.

What kind of business can be deemed successful in 20 days?
What kind of formal evaluation of a venture looks at less than a month's cashflow?

[jasaunders]

Originally Posted by TheCDAllenGroup

No, it's not. It is directed to that man who was running a for-profit business. Stop attempting to read much into what wasn't even implied. He's talking about the guy's venture. In no way is he talking about a personal development issue.

Geez.

I like your selective arguments. Is it your contention also that people should take care of themselves first before helping others? Would you give this advice to someone you don't know?

[TheCDAllenGroup]

Originally Posted by jasaunders

I like your selective arguments. Is it your contention also that people should take care of themselves first before helping others? Would you give this advice to someone you don't know?

This is my personal belief: I like to give people a hand up instead of a hand out. In essence, when I give assistance to anyone [who is in need of it], it is not for a temporary relief to a long-term problem, but a solution for that person to relieve themselves completely of a problem [that's if they are willing to do so].

Does that answer your question?

[jasaunders]

Not really, but I am not really seeking an answer to the question, your personal beliefs are none of my business.

Helping others doesn't always involve money. Having more money doesn't help you provide long-term solutions over temporary solutions. A willingess and desire to help other people are what matters, not how much you have or don't have.

Simply put, it is my belief that in any context, it is selfish to advise someone to take care of themselves before helping others.

[TheCDAllenGroup]

I am willing to help others before I help myself.

[roadtoharvard]

Originally Posted by TheCDAllenGroup

I actually watched this back when it originally aired. I think that both ABC [for airing this nonsense] and Robert [for agreeing to contribute to this "contest"] were stupid for doing this.

What kind of business can be deemed successful in 20 days?
What kind of formal evaluation of a venture looks at less than a month's cashflow?

Why do you tout the benefits of Kiyosak's statements if you disagree with his decisions? Isn't it logical that Kiyosaki would base his decisions on his knowledge? Therefore if you disagree with his decisions than you disagree with his knowledge which is contradictory to your original position.

What does cashflow have to do with the success of a business? Cashflow is simply an accounting measurement of activity in a business. The business's decisions are the primary drivers success and failure. In this case Kiyosaki couldn't contribute to the decision making process of the enterprises because all he had was vague cliches. This is one of the reasons people contend with the information he spouts.

[radreality]

this thread is kind of funny and sad at the same time.

I didn't read every single post on this thread but everything that I did read was just a mere mis-interpretation of what Mr. Kiyosaki truly meant. RK talks a lot about actions and ways of thinking that will ultimately help people over the long term; things that have helped him. When it comes to learning, you have to choices; learn from anyone or learn from someone who is a position you want to be in. Personally I would love to have the lifestyle that Mr. Kiyosaki has, therefore I am more inclined to listen to what he has to say than any faceless and credential less wanna be entrepreneur here on ye.

Don't focus on the words I just said, focus on the thinking behind it. If you can't get past the words, then no wonder you don't agree with Robert Kiyosaki.

______________________________
Robert Falk
Business Developer / Investor
Self Help & Success Forum

[TheCDAllenGroup]

Originally Posted by roadtoharvard

Why do you tout the benefits of Kiyosak's statements if you disagree with his decisions?

I don't disagree with his decisions. I disagreed with this decision.

Isn't it logical that Kiyosaki would base his decisions on his knowledge? Therefore if you disagree with his decisions than you disagree with his knowledge which is contradictory to your original position.

Nice try, but that's too weak my friend. First of all, we don't know how 20/20 approached Kiyosaki on this article. It could have been different from the airing. Second, I don't disagree with his decisions. I don't think being on 20/20 was a wise decision. However, I don't know how they approached him about this segment. There's no contradiction.

You need to keep things in context.

Are you so infallible that you judge the careers and lives of others based on one single act? You're an idiot if you do.

The business's decisions are the primary drivers success and failure.

Beg your pardon?

In this case Kiyosaki couldn't contribute to the decision making process of the enterprises because all he had was vague cliches. This is one of the reasons people contend with the information he spouts.

The reason these individuals did not "succeed" in the 20 days was that they probably didn't have a good foundation to begin with. How do we know that 20/20 didn't have an established bias and recruited the most inept individuals they could find?