Time: Wed Mar 12 18:05:06 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28375; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:26:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:47:33 -0800 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: SAFAN NO. 327 - D.A.W.N. - Look Closely Before you Leap! (fwd) <snip> > STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 327, March 12, 1997 > >D.A.W.N. - LOOK CLOSELY BEFORE YOU LEAP >by Donna Malone (A2Fast4U@aol.com) > >Although I have not forwarded many, if any, of the organization >D.A.W.N.'s recent emails to my downlines, you may have been >receiving them from other sources.... > >I have, along with several other individuals, been attempting to >ascertain EXACTLY who and what D.A.W.N. is for some time. The >results of our efforts have caused me some concern. > >I personally wrote and posed several direct questions to D.A.W.N. >after a review of their posts. D.A.W.N. refused to answer these >questions, continued to whine about everyone not seeing things >their way, and even continued to yell, "fire, fire, fire" (DAWN has >"discovered" our government may not have honorable intentions, >imagine that!?!) and when told, unless and until the questions were >answered, I would not help them and that, if they did answer the >questions satisfactorily that I would try to get them support...THEY >CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER. > >F.Y.I. - when I say "several individuals were looking into this," I am >referring to Norm Olson, Dot Bibee, Helen Johnson and myself. It >did not take long when we compared notes to get to, what I believe, >is the bottom of the situation. However, I do not speak for these >individuals, I speak for myself. I can state, however, from my >conversations with these individuals, that they, too, have serious >reservations about DAWN. > >For instance, D.A.W.N. has intimated Norm Olson supported their >position. Norm Olson did not do this. He has always, and continues >to, support the efforts of ALL freedom loving Americans and >Christians. He has not lent his support in any way to the D.A.W.N. >commercial/marketing program. (Norm, if have misquoted you on >this, please let me know and I will forward your comments.) [See >message below] > >I believe D.A.W.N. may have a good idea - a consortium that believes >in liberty and vows to protect internet freedom. However, if so, they >are, in my opinion, going about it all wrong and SOME of the problems >I have with D.A.W.N. are: > > 1. I do not believe they exercise "Truth in advertising." They >promote what they are doing from a "liberty" perspective and seem >only to be an on-line version of network marketing. > > 2. They make questionable claims as to their experience and >monetary situation; yet, they cannot pay their utility bills and make >absolutely STUPID marketing/advertising mistakes (if not stupid, >then deliberately misleading, which is even worse.) At any rate, >they are either not what they claim to be or deliberately obscuring >what they really are.. > > 3. Their have not just failed to, BUT REFUSED TO, respond to >direct questions about what they are doing, what their goals are, >how they plan to accomplish the goals, etc. > >These are the "highlights" of the problems I have with DAWN. I am >not in any way trying to tell you what to do or influence whether or >not you should "work" with them, etc. I am only expressing my >concerns and telling you why I will not be working with them and >why I think you should exercise EXTREME DISCRETION when >deciding whether or not to associate with them - as in LOOK >BEFORE YOU LEAP so you know what you are getting into. > >I will be happy to entertain any questions or comments you may >have. > >Donna Malone (A2Fast4U@aol.com) >### >====================================================== >Subj: Re: D.A.W.N. - LOOK CLOSELY BEFORE YOU LEAP. >Date: 97-03-11 19:43:26 EST >From: nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us (Norman Olson) >To: A2Fast4U@aol.com > >Donna, > >You are correct in your assessment of where I stand with regard to >D.A.W.N. It was wrong for them to "drop my name" in what >appeared to be an advertising endorsement of their program/ >product. As I have always said, I may agree 100% with the >conclusions that a particular organization has drawn without >agreeing at all with that organization. Thanks to Donna for >keeping the record straight. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 A2Fast4U@aol.com wrote: > >> Although I have not forwarded many, if any, of the organization D.A.W.N.'s >> recent emails to my downlines, you may have been receiving them from other >> sources.... >> >> I have, along with several other individuals, been attempting to ascertain >> EXACTLY who and what D.A.W.N. is for some time. The results of our efforts >> have caused me some concern. >> >> I personally wrote and posed several direct questions to D.A.W.N. after a >> review of their posts. D.A.W.N. refused to answer these questions, >continued >> to whine about everyone not seeing things their way, and even continued to >> yell, "fire, fire, fire" (DAWN has "discovered" our government may not have >> honorable intentions, imagine that!?!) and when told, unless and until the >> questions were anwered, I would not help them and that, if they did answer >> the questions satisfactorily that I would try to get them support, THEY >> CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER. >> >> F.Y.I. - when I say "several individuals were looking into this," I am >> refering to Norm Olson, Dot Bibee, Helen Johnson and myself. It did not >take >> long when we compared notes to get to, what I believe, is the bottom of the >> situation. However, I do not speak for these individuals, I speak for >> myself. I can state, however, from my conversations with these >individuals, >> that they, too, have serious reservations about DAWN. >> >> For instance, D.A.W.N. has intimated Norm Olson supported their position. >> Norm Olson did not do this. He has always, and continues to, support the >> efforts of ALL freedom loving Americans and Christians. He has not lent >his >> support in any way to the D.A.W.N. commercial/marketing program. (Norm, if >I >> have misquoted you on this, please let me know and I will forward your >> comments.) >> >> I believe D.A.W.N. may have a good idea - a consortium that believes in >> liberty and vows to protect internet freedom. However, if so, they are, in >> my opinion, going about it all wrong and SOME of the problems I have with >> D.A.W.N. are: >> >> 1. I do not believe they exercise "Truth in advertising." They promote >what >> they are doing from a "liberty" perspective and seem only to be an on-line >> version of network marketing. >> >> 2. They make questionable claims as to their experience and monetary >> situation; yet, they cannot pay their utility bills and make absolutely >> STUPID marketing/advertising mistakes (if not stupid, then deliberately >> misleading, which is even worse.) At any rate, they are either not what >they >> claim to be or deliberately obscuring what they really are.. >> >> 3. Their have not just failed to, BUT REFUSED TO, respond to direct >> questions about what they are doing, what their goals are, how they plan to >> accomplish the goals, etc. >> >> These are the "highlights" of the problems I have with DAWN. I am not in >any >> way trying to tell you what to do or influence whether or not you should >> "work" with them, etc. I am only expressing my concerns and telling you >why >> I will not be working with them and why I think you should exercise EXTREME >> DISCRETION when deciding whether or not to associate with them - as in LOOK >> BEFORE YOU LEAP so you know what you are getting into. >> >> I will be happy to entertain any questions or comments you may have. >> >> Donna >> >> >> >> > > >-Donna, > > You are correct in your assessment of where I stand with regard >to D.A.W.N. It was wrong for them to "drop my name" in what appeared >to be an advertising endorsement of their program/product. As I have >always said, I may agree 100% with the conclusions that a particular >organization has drawn without agreeing at all with that organization. > > Thanks to Donna for keeping the record straight. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail