this is a good technique as long as the person has the money by the time the check is deposited. Once I did that with a guy and he got money but did not pay. We called the bank verified the money was there and took it. He kept saying he did not have money.
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: mainstream20016 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: commitment belief trust and adveristy To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 12:24 PM There's a technique to lending money that works really well to increase the odds of getting repaid. When a person approaches you and asks to borrow, he is usually very upbeat, and cooperative with the terms, and the ' lender ' at that point has maximum leverage. As the potential lender, Ask the following questions: How much money do you need to borrow ? When do you need the money ? When can you repay ? After the borrower answers those three questions, the lender the directs the borrower to write a check to lender, for amount to be loaned, dated the agreed repayment date. Asking for the repayment check upfront as a necessary condition to the loan eliminates having to ' remind ' the borrower of his obligation, and prevents 'misunderstandings' and tremendously minimizes the hassle of lending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > In the 1950's, a few people in India helped Maharishi a lot > > when he was struggling financially. > > > > Later on when Maharishi copyrighted the TM and started getting > > millions of dollars, he ignored them completely.!! He never > > even acknowledged those who helped him go to the west and > > establish himself financialy secure. > > > > Both Deepak Chopra's father and Chopra helped Maharishi a lot > > and yet in the end he kicked Chopra out.!! > > > > Perhaps both Bill Gates and Maharishi have something in common. > > Exactly. > > I know that this thread was supposed to be a kind > of "pity party" for Louis and all he's been through, > and that we were supposed to express our compassion > and our admiration of him "sticking to his principles" > throughout it all. > > Ok, I *do* feel compassion for his hard times. And on > some level I feel some admiration for him "sticking to > his principles." I just couldn't help noticing that > those principles don't seem to involve repaying the > people who loaned him money or invested in his busi- > ness ideas in the first place. The principles are more > about "sticking to the purity of his vision." > > Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't respect that as much > as TMers and other "spiritual" people seem to. And the > reason is that over the years I've loaned money to a > *lot* of people, *none* of whom ever repaid a dime of > it. None of them ever *thought* of repaying a dime of > it. They used it to pay for their courses, or their > rent, or their business schemes that never worked out, > or in one case, their women. > > And they thought of all of these things they spent the > money on as an integral part of their spiritual sadhana, > and thus somehow "off the books." The general attitude > was that if it helps them pursue enlightenment (or what- > ever their *personal* goals were), these are not "debts" > that need to be respected but money flowing in from the > universe -- an expression of "support of nature." > > Excuuuuuse me, but the money flowing in was an expres- > sion of a friend trying to help them, a friend who did > not have that much money in the first place, and had to > do without a few things himself f*in order to* help > them out. > > Not a penny ever got repaid. > > And not *one* of them ever felt bad about it. > > I think there is something *wrong* with this. I think > that it's wrong when some meditator bums money to pay > his rent because he's too "evolved" to work, and I > think there is something wrong with it when someone > meditator comes up with a get rich quick scheme and > winds up defrauding a number of his meditating friends > when the scheme goes belly up. > > Louis may NOT have had anything like this in mind; the > whole problem may be that he wrote what he did without > clarifying the details of these people who "backed" > him who are now so unevolved as to want their money > back. It could be a simple failure of language, and > I may be up on my soapbox without cause. If so, I > apologize in advance. > > But the whole schtick in this post was "principle," > and I for one couldn't help but notice that the one > principle that kept getting ignored was *paying back* > the people who invested money. > > If it had been me, I would have gone wherever I could > have found work and paid back every penny. *Then* I > would have started over on some new plan. That's my > definition of commitment, belief, trust, and how to > deal with adversity. > > You can call me "non-spiritual" for feeling this way > if you want, but that's how I feel. Principle is not > found in the glorious plans one talks about or pitches > to others, but in what one DOES when those plans some- > times don't work out. > > > > --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: commitment belief trust and adveristy > > Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 3:28 AM > > > > > > I'm sure it is. Did your original investors not > > getting their money back have any impact on *their* > > families or *their* lifestyles? > > > > And again, your "funding" (theoretically, more > > investment in your business ideas) comes through, > > and the *first* you do with it is buy a house for > > you and your family? While the question of how > > much is left for the business idea or how much > > goes to repaying your original investors remains > > unaddressed? > > > > I lived in New Mexico for several years. Few people > > know that Microsoft started there, in Albuquerque. > > During my time there I ran into probably two dozen > > people who still spit every time they hear the name > > "Bill Gates" because he blew town and moved to Seattle > > owing them tens of thousands of dollars, and in a few > > cases hundreds of thousands of dollars. > > > > The richest man in the world has never paid those > > debts. He has never even *acknowledged* those debts. > > Bill Gates can give away billions of dollars to > > charity for the rest of his life, but not one of > > these people he left holding the bag are ever going > > to have an ounce of respect for him. > > > > All I'm suggesting is that as things come around for > > you and you start to get back on your feet financially, > > you might want to put some thought into repaying the > > people who invested in you earlier, instead of referring > > to them as having "backed out on you." > > > > I'm sorry, but the almost complete self-absorbtion of > > your post leads me to believe they might have had some > > reason for doing so. Even if this is not true, the bottom > > line is that if you still owe them money, you still owe > > them money. > > > > They didn't *give* you the money, dude...they *invested* > > in you. If you don't repay their investment, you can > > write here all you want about how your vision helped you > > through the struggle, but that's like listening to Bill > > Gates spout bullshit about how he made billions by being > > so smart, when in fact he got rich by bailing on his debts. > > > > * > > > > > ------------------------------------ To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
