Michael,

I agree with some of your arguments. I'll post my disagreements below:

> Adam:

> After reading John Reed's views on these
> supposed real estate gurus, I have
> discovered...

> Selective editing,
> False Assumptions,
> Out of Context quotes,
> Miss-quotes and,
> Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn... All
> throughout his writing.

>>> He does do some of this. And it damages his credibility. But this does not take away from the points he makes about RK.

> He claims John Burley says he retired at a
> certain age, then asks, if he is retired why
> does he still sell stuff and do seminars and
> workshops. And he says Burley's claims of
> retirement are on his website.

>>> Who is John Burley? This is irrelevent to us discussing RK and JTR's criticism of him. JTR may also bash Christianity, Drag Racing and Robert Duvall's acting, and do a poor job of it. Doesn't matter, here. We're just discussing his criticism of RK.

> So my purchase of X number
> of shares of Microsoft means I also partly
> own everything Microsoft owns - including
> the land and buildings of other companies.

Come on, Mike... this is like saying you're gay because you had sex with a woman who has sex with men.

Just because I invest in MS does not make that "investment real estate." We may be going off subject here. :)

> I wrote to John Reed and asked him...
> "From the Proof you offer about your
> real estate expertise, it appears that you
> only own ONE real estate property. Is this
> correct?" (He NEVER replied)

So what? I don't actively train dogs anymore. Just because I don't, does not mean that I can't, or that I'm not an expert on dog training, or that I'm not still the best dog trainer in the world, right?

JTR lists all of the properties (addresses, dates, etc...) he's owned. RK does not. If I remember correctly, JTR has owned 11. RK has owned 4. Hardly enough to be preaching about how be "Rich."

> The fact John Reed sells real estate books
> taints EVERYTHING he writes about other real
> estate book authors - the good and the bad -
> because he has a vested interest in the
> subject.

This is a ridiculous point. He is an authority on the subject, and therefore his opinion is "tainted"? Everyone's opinion is "tainted." But I'd rather read what an authority has to say on the subject than read what a wanna-be dreamer thinks about it. (I'm not talking about you, Mike... I just mean your average shmoe.)

> Of course, if he didn't, people would view
> his remarks as they should - just someone
> else's opinion, and we all have our own
> opinions.

It's more than just another opinion. He is an authority in the field. This may be irrelevent, since we should be evaluating his arguments, rather than his pedigree.

> I'll also echo Dien's remarks here: Kiyosaki
> is NOT, nor has he ever claimed to be, a
> real estate guru. And yet, Reed reviews his
> work as though it is the work of a real
> estate guru.

He acts like a guru. He walks and talks like one. And furthermore, he's proffering advice on how to get rich.

I could understand if he were offering vague advice that was at least sound. But his advice is riddled with inconsistencies and b.s.

> Reed's page on "Where are they
> now" (or whatever it is called) shows
> Kiyosaki as being bankrupt in 1985, and that
> is all! That is selective presentation of
> the information. It is plainly obvious that
> Kiyosaki's 1985 bankruptcy has been overcome
> - it was not the end of the story for
> Kiyosaki. Yet, by providing only that bit of
> information, Reed once again Taints
> everything.

Yeah, but the point is: This guy grew up with Rich Dad's advice, and it's questionable if he ever got rich, before becoming a guru. So, somehow you and I are supposed to be able to GET Rich Dad's teachings? Not bloodly likely.

> But alas, the public (HA!) is not like that.
> Those who doubt Kiyosaki will find solice in
> Reed's writing. Those who love Kiyosaki will
> be upset by Reed and attack him. And those
> who take what they can use, will view both
> objectively, find good and bad points, and
> move along their merry way.

No, I think the danger with RK is that he's trying to sell a contrarian's dream of how we'd all like to imagine becoming wealthy SHOULD be. But this is far from reality. He is the pied piper, leading his lemmings down a road to heartbreak and disappointment. For when they learn that their emperor has no clothes, they will be left with wasted time and broken dreams... and quite possibly, financial ruin.

> And what is MY opinion of Kiyosaki?

> After seeing a workshop of his (via Pay TV)
> I was also unimpressed. In fact, he came
> across like a sleezy Get Rich Quick guy

Bingo! He comes across that way, because he IS that way.

> - I
> live in a big house, with expensive cars and
> high-priced watches and Love spending money
> on my Platinum credit card, etc.

Kind of inconsistent with his preachings, eh?

-Adam.


Browning Direct