Women empowering Women?

seamus · 24-11-2001 1:31pm #1

Has anyone heard about this? Chris Barry had like 3 or 4 shows dedicated to the subject, 'cos quite frankly, it is scary.

See this: http://www.dti.gov.uk/cacp/ca/wew.htm

Basically the short of it is, Someone invites you in. You give them 3 grand, and then you try to get another 8 people in behind you to give you 3 grand, and you end up with 24 grand for yourself. Then the people you brought in get 8 people each......... You can see where it goes. This is highly simplified and not quite accurate, but fundamentally the same.

Problem is, loads of women have bought this crap. The people promoting it use jargon that appeals to women. Things like buying a full heart and half a heart and 'circle of friends'. It is quite frustrating listening to them, because they have been so sucked in they can't see what's going on.
One night, some guy said to a women involved '...and what happens when you've got enough people on your sheet?'. To which she replies snottily 'It's not a sheet, it's a card'. WTF?!?! Sheet, card, it's all PAPER!!!! This is an example of the type of thing that has really got me astounded as to how brainwashed these women are. They protect the idea with every inch of their being.

The maths is obvious, as I'm sure most people on these boards can see. They are fooled into thinking that if they keep goign 'back in', then they are just forming a circle, ie that it's not a pyramid scheme. Em no. And eventually the poor bastards who come in at the end can't get anyone to give them 3 grand and they lose their original 3.
Maths-type people have worked out that a minimum of 6 ppl must lose their money for every one person who makes their fortune. Yet most of the women involved swear that it is an organisation of 'women helping women'. Granted some know that others will lose, but don't care because they have made their money, but 90% of them don't see this. I know I'm scared. It is really this easy to fool people??

And why target women? 'Cos they're easily fooled? NO. 'Cos the maths confuses them? Possible but doubtful. 'Cos they trust people easier than men, especially when emotionally fragile? That's my theory. It was proven that women who are just from newly broken marriages, etc are the main targets of people who know it's a scam. And these women are made to feel comfortable and as if they are safe by being with their fellow 'oppressed women', and so much more willing to part with their cash. Men will always be slightly doubtful of stranger's intentions, especially where money is involved, IMHO

.

Sorry about the length, I needed a good rant about this. Opinions?

K!LL!@N · 24-11-2001 1:50pm

It's quite simple to work out how many people are going to lose out in a scheme like this.

1) Each person gives £3,000.

2) You need 8 people to make £24,000.

3) Only one of these 8 people will get the initial £24,000, the others will have to wait until more people are sucked in.

4) That leaves 7, of the 8 people, getting nothing on the initial turn.

5) That means you have 1 in 8 chance of getting £24,000.

So let's say that we've managed to hook 1,000 into our scheme. Divide 1,000 by 8 and that's the number of people who will get £24,000. 1000/8 = 125. That means that 875 people are going to lose out.

But hey, if you can get in at the start or something like this, and you don't have much of a conscience, then you will more than likely get the money.

Killian

*Edited for Baz's sake.

Baz_ · 24-11-2001 2:22pm

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
It's quite simple to work out how many people are going to lose out in a scheme like this.

1) Each person gives £3,000.

2) You need 8 people to make £24,000.

3) Only one of these 8 people will get the £24,000.

4) That leaves 7, of the 8 people, getting nothing.

5) That means you have 1 in 8 chance of getting £24,000.

So let's say that we've managed to hook 1,000 into our scheme. Divide 1,000 by 8 and that's the number of people who will get £24,000. 1000/8 = 125. That means that 875 people are going to lose out.

But hey, if you can get in at the start or something like this, and you don't have much of a conscience, then you will more than likely get the money.

Killian

whoa fücking hoa, but where did them there maths come from. At least one of them there points is an assumption (see point 3), unless of course you have a proof of some sort but that blew my mind, and I had to object.

Originally posted by Seamus
This is highly simplified and not quite accurate, but fundamentally the same.

I cant help my mind objecting to that one either, well more laughing than objecting ROFL

seamus · 24-11-2001 2:33pm

Originally posted by Baz_
I cant help my mind objecting to that one either, well more laughing than objecting ROFL

Because? Pls back up your opinions with something. Anything.:)

ConUladh · 24-11-2001 3:32pm

This was a ctually news a few months ago, here's a couple of articles from the Irish Times from the start of August.

I had to laugh at the first one

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0803/hom8.htm

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0803/hom11.htm

Baz_ · 24-11-2001 4:28pm

Originally posted by seamus

Because? Pls back up your opinions with something. Anything.:)

It wasn't an opininon, but something being simplified and inaccurate is rarely the same, if ya follow what I mean. It was the wording that I found funny not the topic. I have no feelings about the topic, if someone wants to blow 3 grand let them I have no objections.

K!LL!@N · 24-11-2001 5:22pm

Ok Baz, i didn't quite make myself clear with that point (3).
It would be quite possible for all 8 of those people to get £24,000, but they will not all get it at the same time.
But the rest of the maths is correct. Just slow down and think about it. I thought i was clear enough in my explanation.
I could sit down and do you out a diagram, but i couldn't be bothered.

Killian

Baz_ · 24-11-2001 5:58pm

Originally posted by K!LL!@N
Ok Baz, i didn't quite make myself clear with that point (3).
It would be quite possible for all 8 of those people to get £24,000, but they will not all get it at the same time.
But the rest of the maths is correct. Just slow down and think about it. I thought i was clear enough in my explanation.
I could sit down and do you out a diagram, but i couldn't be bothered.

Killian

soz kill didn't mean to offend you or anything, but as I understood seamus's post 1 woman asks 8 people to join, them 8 people ask a different 8 each to join, and so I don't see why it is not possible for each of the 8 to get 24,000 each at the same time, maybe I took seamus's post up wrong though, but I didn't mean for you to get thick with me or anything.

Baz_ the apologetic.

Victor · 24-11-2001 7:05pm

It works of peoples greed and ends up hurting a lot of people. Heres the maths.


 1 					 IR&#163;24,000 
 8 					 IR&#163;192,000 
 64 					 IR&#163;1,536,000 
 512 					 IR&#163;12,288,000 
 4,096				 	 IR&#163;98,304,000 
 32,768 				 IR&#163;786,432,000 
 262,144 				 IR&#163;6,291,456,000 
 2,097,152 				 IR&#163;50,331,648,000 
 16,777,216 				 IR&#163;402,653,184,000 
 134,217,728 				 IR&#163;3,221,225,472,000 
 1,073,741,824 				not a lot
 the rest of the people on earth 	 nothing

mike65 · 24-11-2001 7:17pm

Joe Duffys' prog on RTE Radio has been banging on about
this for a couple of weeks now, with Joe himself
taking a rightly partisan view - ie this is a scam.

Whats amazing is the zeal of those who are part of it and
so far, making money from thier friends and neighbours.

They keep talking about the scam in terms which suggest they
know perfectly well its dishonest and wrong but, so long as
everybody keeps pouring money in, well everyone will
be okay.

The cynicism of the name is amazing too, imagine falling for that line!, yet plenty of women do, I'd be offended at being patronised
so.

They'll be blood on the carpets of north Co Dublin (where its very strong) before Christmas they way things are going.

Mike.

K!LL!@N · 24-11-2001 9:12pm

Didn't mean to get "thick" with you, Baz.
It just seemed you picked at a minor detail in what i was saying when the rest of it was correct. The fact remains that 7 in 8 people are going to lose out in this scheme.
My understanding of the scheme is that each woman is expected to bring in 2 people behind her, and these 2 people bring 2 more and so on.... When a woman has brought in 8 people behind her she can expect to get the money.

Killian

Blitzkrieger · 25-11-2001 2:58pm

It's an illegal pyramid scheme that seems to surface every few years. Didn't it criple the economy of some country (Albania) not so long ago? My sister fell for one of these a few years back and was quite miffed (understatement of the century

) that I wouldn't buy into it with her. She was hit for £100 and was promised £2,400 in return. Muppet :rolleyes:

HOW TO SPOT A CON

* If it sounds too good to be true - it is.

* You don't get something for nothing.

Pyramid schemes and chain letters are the most common types. The always fizzle out after 2 or 3 rounds, so if anybody makes any money, it's the people at the top of the list. No prizes for guessing who they are.

Greenbean · 26-11-2001 1:41am

Hmm. Ok, lets say everyone joins the pyramid in equal waves, eg lets say we are 6 iterations down the pyramid and each branch has equal numbers of people in it - each person/woman sucessfully got 8 more people involved for eight new stages, then...

8 * 8 * 8 * 8 * 8 * 8 = 262,144 people were involved. Which is to be honest, a fairly huge amount of people, and it only took 6 stages. At each stage your chances of success are reduced as the numbers get astronomical - two more stages and we have 16,777,216 people involved and barely any are going to get to that many people. So we can accept that at some stage its all gonna fall apart. When it does all the people in the current stage are going to get nothing, and all those before will have made their money, but no matter what the previous stage is going to be smaller than the current stage by a factor of eight. So when it does happen 7/8ths are going to have lost their money. The only thing really to care about is what stage you join it at. Being in stage one, well that requires alot of balls or some very snide sneaky thinking and salesmanship. And you don't get a bigger amount more for being at the top of the pyramid, you're just an evil bastard who's prepared to try start something like this for relatively small money you will get and the havock that ensues. Being in stage two isn't a great place to be either, because you are still in a fairly small organisation of 64 people who may not necessarily know about each other. Stage three on the other hand is probably a very good time to join, perhaps 512 fairly local people are going to be hyping it up, and the good rumours will be spreading like wild fire. After that, its like the dot.com boom, will it fall apart before you make your money or not?

Chaos-Engine · 26-11-2001 2:13am

Scams that take advantage of Middle aged women....

They use the words:
-New age
-Female Entreprenurs
-Individuality
-"By myself"
-Single Working Women

its neo-feminism... its destructive and it takes advantage of women...

New-age or Consumer spirituality for women.
Its about selling anything to do with Nature or Natural and they make u pay BIG....
A pack of Tarot cards costs about £15+... I mean come on... U can do tarot readings with a pack of playing cards(price 50p).

Herbial remodies... Overly priced and ill informed. I am not knocking herbialism, I for one usually go for it over convential treatment however the amount of women that place their faith in unqualified herbialists is amazing. There are no accepted courses here in Ireland. The nearist one is in Cardiff University....

Books on dream reading, witchcraft and enlightnment... They all start with "HOW TO" and are written by New-agers(usually come with a half page photo of the author)...

ppl r misinformed on these new-age/alt philosophies and espically women in their mid 40s and young teenage girls.

bonkey · 26-11-2001 11:15am

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
A pack of Tarot cards costs about £15+... I mean come on... U can do tarot readings with a pack of playing cards(price 50p).

Good trick. Tarot deck as 78 cards, regular deck as 52. Even removing the major arcana from a tarot leaves you with 56 cards.

On a more "on-topic" note....the maths you guys have supplied for the scheme ignore the "circle" described. Whats this about? Well, simple...all these women pay 3 grand, then get 24 grand, then spend 21 of that 24 joining "other" circles. They end up with a net of 0, and also avoid the illegality of running a pyramid!

OF course, when one looks at it this way, one can ask what the point of the cash is because if you dont make or lose money, why move it around so much

I would bet, however, that the *organisers* may not be reinvesting their 21 grand profit on each circle they start up, so they pocket a fortune, but they'll insist the scheme works, and the women who are building up their friendly networks will also be happy, except for the few who do not get reinvestment on their three grand.

This is effectively a more cleverly structured system. It accrues money less quickly, and therefore will ultimately gain the organisers more cash. It also neatly sidesteps being categorised as a pyramid scheme.

jc

mayhem# · 26-11-2001 12:18pm

Let's put it this way;
Anyone who's thick enough to invest 3 grand in any of these schemes deserves to be ripped offf.....

neuro-praxis · 26-11-2001 1:30pm

I find this issue quite worrying. I have no idea why women appear to be more susceptible to this type of thing than men.

It may simply be the allure of the possible money. I mean, obviously we all want money, but many middle-aged housewives in this country (my mother for example) haven't owned any substantial personal funds since before they were married (and my mam got married at 20). She's had an equal share in my dad's earnings (joint accounts and all that), but she's never earned any big money herself. Now, my mother is smart woman who would always warn against this type of scam (my parents went through a big phase of educating me and my brother about the danger of cults, scams etc.), but I can sort of understand why a middle aged housewife might crave a little bit of financial independance and power, whilst not having to take on any more responsibility. Homemaking is tough work. So, the appeal is clear.

Otherwise it's greed. People may be foolish, but ultimately they are greedy. Who doesn't want twenty four grand? I reckon people realise the risk fully but are content not to look beyond the length of their own nose when it comes to obtaining the money.

I think that the susceptibility of men and women towards scams will balance out in the future. Women are still second-class citzens in most parts of the world, and there is a long way to go yet even in Ireland. When women have full confidence in their abilities (and when men have full confidence in women's abilities)it will become more even.

Anyone who engages in the pyramid, in my opinion, has a pretty despicable character, it must be said.:(

mike65 · 27-11-2001 7:15pm

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I find this issue quite worrying. I have no idea why women appear to be more susceptible to this type of thing than men.

It may simply be the allure of the possible money. I mean, obviously we all want money, but many middle-aged housewives in this country (my mother for example) haven't owned any substantial personal funds since before they were married (and my mam got married at 20). She's had an equal share in my dad's earnings (joint accounts and all that), but she's never earned any big money herself. Now, my mother is smart woman who would always warn against this type of scam (my parents went through a big phase of educating me and my brother about the danger of cults, scams etc.), but I can sort of understand why a middle aged housewife might crave a little bit of financial independance and power, whilst not having to take on any more responsibility. Homemaking is tough work. So, the appeal is clear.

Thats proberly the smartest thing I heard said on this issue so far,
"empowerment" is a, er powerful concept and if you think you
deserve some then its a slippery exploitation slope from that point on.

That said men are much more likely to blow a ton of money on
betting, but they'll fool themselves by talking about knowledge
and carefull calulation.

Mike.

Red Moose · 28-11-2001 12:07am

Well it's still Women Empowering Women, but it's really just (Stupid) Women Empowering (Scam Artist) Women (with cash).

But then again it's all about greed really, and while you may have issues with the ring leader's morals, it doesn't rely on some altruistic crap to hook the women, it's money, plain and simple. And if they are greedy enough to think that £3000 can become £24000 they should be locked up with the rest of the loons.

Brown Eyes · 28-11-2001 11:43am

"I have no idea why women appear to be more susceptible to this type of thing than men. "

I don't think they are, the scam is cloaked in the Oprah version langauge of the women's movement, but many men are involved and quite a few Men Empowering Men (MEM) scams have started up. Greed and gullibility knows no gender.

Victor · 28-11-2001 7:38pm

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/1128/breaking1.htm

Suggesting the scheme should be renamed "Women Defrauding Women", she questioned why legislation outlawing pyramid selling was not being used to stop the scheme.

WhiteWashMan · 29-11-2001 10:57am

its a form of pyramid selling
pyramid selling is illegal.
simple.

only stupid people get suckered in...

Baz_ · 29-11-2001 11:05am

beautifully and eloquently put as usual wwm, you should start a book;)

WhiteWashMan · 29-11-2001 11:25am

Originally posted by Baz_
beautifully and eloquently put as usual wwm, you should start a book;)

can i use this quote on the back cover?

Bard · 29-11-2001 2:29pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
its a form of pyramid selling

reeeeeeeeeeallllyyyyy???

what are they selling then?

WhiteWashMan · 29-11-2001 2:35pm

Originally posted by Bard

reeeeeeeeeeallllyyyyy???

what are they selling then?

okay mr pedanitc.
its a scheme based on the mechanism used for pyramid selling.
does that make you feel better?

dont you have something to moan about on the admin forum.
it must be hours since you tried to get anyone 12-clicked.

Bard · 29-11-2001 3:10pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

okay mr pedanitc.
its a scheme based on the mechanism used for pyramid selling.
does that make you feel better?

Couldn't care less, to be honest.

My point is that as they're not actually *selling* anything, it doesn't actually come under the laws against 'pyramid selling'. Perhaps they've found a legal loophole and they can't actually be 'busted' for it.

I thought someone, yourself perhaps, might like to discuss the legality of it, but of course you naturally come out with this "mr pedanitc" (sic) shite. It's getting a little bit boring at this stage, getting the same insulting response from you again and again, although it seems you don't tire of it...

dont you have something to moan about on the admin forum.
it must be hours since you tried to get anyone 12-clicked.

I've never tried to get anyone 12-clicked... and there's enough people moaning and talking crap on the Admin boards these days, yourself included, without me adding my voice to the noise...

Anyway... the point is that perhaps these WEW people found a legal loophole and believe they can't be charged because of the fact that they're "gifting" the £3,000 and not actually buying any goods or services.

The girlfriend of a friend of mine receives her £24,000 today - 6 weeks after investing £3,000. She's one of the 'lucky ones', of course.

Take it easy,

WhiteWashMan · 29-11-2001 3:29pm

Originally posted by Bard

Couldn't care less, to be honest.,

good.

Originally posted by Bard

My point is that as they're not actually *selling* anything, it doesn't actually come under the laws against 'pyramid selling'. Perhaps they've found a legal loophole and they can't actually be 'busted' for it.

ok, its not technically pyramid selling. its not exactly amways either. but you knew what i meant

Originally posted by Bard

I thought someone, yourself perhaps, might like to discuss the legality of it, but of course you naturally come out with this "mr pedanitc" (sic) shite. It's getting a little bit boring at this stage, getting the same insulting response from you again and again, although it seems you don't tire of it...
,

ok pa-lease. i havent called you mr pedantic in at least 3 months!
and i wouldnt say it if it werent true....
anyway, on the legality of it, im sure its not illegal to give people money. on the other hand, im quiet sure its illegal to deal in these schemes without some sort of small print that reads
*while you give away 3000 quid, you may not get any money back. its luck of the draw*
etc etc etc
if after reading that someone is stupid enough to part with their money, then good luck and all the best wishes to them, but it doesnt take a mathmatician to figure out that only 1 in 8 people are going to have this contract fulfilled.
where is the sense in this?

Originally posted by Bard

I've never tried to get anyone 12-clicked... and there's enough people moaning and talking crap on the Admin boards these days, yourself included, without me adding my voice to the noise...

actually, ive never asked for anyone to be 12-clicked, but you have asked for people to be 12 clicked.
i believe gladiator is up there at the top with you asking for him to be 12-clicked a number of times

as for crap on the admin board, hell, youd have figured that i post crap everywhere except the work board

Originally posted by Bard

Anyway... the point is that perhaps these WEW people found a legal loophole and believe they can't be charged because of the fact that they're "gifting" the £3,000 and not actually buying any goods or services.

maybe, but surely someone must be held responsible for the 7 out of 8 people who do not prosper from this scheme? is this a dublin thing, or an ireland thing?

Originally posted by Bard

The girlfriend of a friend of mine receives her £24,000 today - 6 weeks after investing £3,000. She's one of the 'lucky ones', of course.

nice if you can get it.
money for nothing....

Originally posted by Bard

Take it easy,

well ok i will. you take care to hunnybuggles....

Bard · 29-11-2001 3:43pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

actually, ive never asked for anyone to be 12-clicked, but you have asked for people to be 12 clicked.
i believe gladiator is up there at the top with you asking for him to be 12-clicked a number of times

*actually* (I use that word a lot, don't I?), no... I never asked for him to be 12-clicked. I made a point of not asking for it.

I did say at some stage that "something should be done about him" and did say at another stage that I'd "rather see him banned" than given a last chance, but I didn't actually ASK for anyone to be 12-clicked... much less Gladiator.

(I know that's pedantry, as such, ... but ... ahhh... f3ck it

I tend to be ultra-logical in my debating, and that leads to being labelled as utterly pedantic. It's not how I mean to come across, it just happens ... occasionally

)

He's back now, anyway.

--

As for the rest of your post... eh... great stuff... well said

Hoo-hah... and all that...

well ok i will. you take care to hunnybuggles....

You and I getting along? C'mon... ! What'll people say?

Cheers, snugglecakes,

WhiteWashMan · 29-11-2001 3:55pm

dunno, but i didnt say anything derogaroty towards you in the homelessness thread. in fact, i agreed with you.

god, i must be gettin gold.
the starndards are slipping.
or maybe it is just this afternoon philosiphising making me zen-like.
next you will here me say that amp is a god.
oh dear, go on, take that out of context and stick it in your sig you thieving little bas7ard

(amp, not bard)

tired. must sleep. actually, must leave work now and go to london

seamus · 02-12-2001 10:30am

I don't think the word 'pedantic' has ever occured so many times in the same place before LOL

. I'll use this as evidence next time I hear mods complaining about ppl going OT

WhiteWashMan · 02-12-2001 7:17pm

Originally posted by seamus
I don't think the word 'pedantic' has ever occured so many times in the same place before LOL . I'll use this as evidence next time I hear mods complaining about ppl going OT

lol?
tee hee hee?

we, the moderators are happy to have taught you a new word.

Boston · 03-12-2001 9:41pm

As per usual wwm came out on top there,

id just like to say i had one stinging comeback in the other topic before all OT posts were removed.

I Tell you, if i could get a book full of wwm rants and flames i think id buy a copy,(god knows no one else will

)

WhiteWashMan · 04-12-2001 1:15pm

Originally posted by «Bo§ton»
As per usual wwm came out on top there,

id just like to say i had one stinging comeback in the other topic before all OT posts were removed.

I Tell you, if i could get a book full of wwm rants and flames i think id buy a copy,(god knows no one else will )

actually, id give you a signed copy.
that would be ine fir me and one for you.
and id sign it, to my number one fan....

anyway, theres no interesting topics to actually talk on, so i have to pass my time with caustic comments.
im not really that horrid in real life.
just misunderstood.:(
ask amp

Bard · 04-12-2001 2:29pm

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

im not really that horrid in real life.
just misunderstood.:(
ask amp

It's true... he's not really that horrible in real life

He sold me a fine Zip drive and bought me a beer...

... which is nice

--

(On topic):

Apparently there's a group using our bar for WEW meetings. Management have decided that if we find out who they are or come across them having a meeting they will simply be kicked out of the bar and barred indefinitely, and I think they're damn right to do it too.

Women empowering Women?

Comments