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