Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

Axa Rep Threatens 403(b) Advocate

Recommended Posts

 

I gave my experience to support my belief in the allegation. I never implied that violence was threatened in the NJ situation.

 

Were you on the basketball team at WF? It would explain you lack of ability to follow an argument. It would also explain you rabid defense of the indefendable.

 

 

At least I went to collige. Look, if your went to critcize me personally and acuse me of being stuped, look in the mirer first and at least run a spill check and gromrr check before you tipe. The word is "your" not you and indefensible not "indefendable".

 

My criticism of your comment was that your family being threatened with physical violence has absolutely nothing to do with this incident and left the impression that the situation involved some threat of physical violence, which it did not. That's all I ever said.

 

 

TR,

 

There is in fact a comparison. This type of threat, whether it is physical or legal, is just plain wrong. You don't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

By the way, since you are apparently interested in grammar, you might want to check the last sentence of your first paragraph for errors.

Edited by apteacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TR1982

AP,

I agree with you that any threat is wrong! I never suggested that nor am I defending it. I was simply trying to suggest that newspaper articles and their writers don't always present all the facts or both points of view. The writer did not give us the entire email, she only gave us the part that could be construed to be a threat. Why did she do that? Maybe because if it was viewed in context it might not be perceived as a threat. Is that SO hard to understand? The problem here is that no one is questioning the source of the information and their motives. They are not always pure either. In fact, a poster came on and said he knew the contents of the email and said it was a threat. Why won't he give us the email? If something is true it should be able to stand the light of day, unless no one here cares about the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TR1982

Why should the source be questioned? Especially, since such threats are not uncommon.

 

 

I guess you believe everything you read in the newspaper or see on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP,

I agree with you that any threat is wrong! I never suggested that nor am I defending it. I was simply trying to suggest that newspaper articles and their writers don't always present all the facts or both points of view. The writer did not give us the entire email, she only gave us the part that could be construed to be a threat. Why did she do that? Maybe because if it was viewed in context it might not be perceived as a threat. Is that SO hard to understand? The problem here is that no one is questioning the source of the information and their motives. They are not always pure either. In fact, a poster came on and said he knew the contents of the email and said it was a threat. Why won't he give us the email? If something is true it should be able to stand the light of day, unless no one here cares about the truth.

 

 

TR,

 

The problem with your first sentence is that, since one can never be absolutely, positively, 100% certain beyond ANY doubt AT ALL, it would be virtually impossible to recognize that a threat was ever made. You say that threats are wrong, but in effect, your standard for identifying them is so impossibly high that one could never actually be shown to make such threats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TR1982

 

AP,

I agree with you that any threat is wrong! I never suggested that nor am I defending it. I was simply trying to suggest that newspaper articles and their writers don't always present all the facts or both points of view. The writer did not give us the entire email, she only gave us the part that could be construed to be a threat. Why did she do that? Maybe because if it was viewed in context it might not be perceived as a threat. Is that SO hard to understand? The problem here is that no one is questioning the source of the information and their motives. They are not always pure either. In fact, a poster came on and said he knew the contents of the email and said it was a threat. Why won't he give us the email? If something is true it should be able to stand the light of day, unless no one here cares about the truth.

 

 

TR,

 

The problem with your first sentence is that, since one can never be absolutely, positively, 100% certain beyond ANY doubt AT ALL, it would be virtually impossible to recognize that a threat was ever made. You say that threats are wrong, but in effect, your standard for identifying them is so impossibly high that one could never actually be shown to make such threats.

 

 

That's ridiculous and I never said that. Why are some of you so afraid of seeing the entire email in context? Does the light of day scare you? Come on! I'll give you an example of what I am talking about:

 

You send an email to a parent of one of your students.

 

Part of email says: "Your child will fail my class"

That could be correctly interpreted as a threat.

 

Full email says: "Your child has not been completing his homework assignments. He has not passed any of his exams. Your child will fail my class."

In that context the partial quote could hardly be considered a threat. It was simply a statement of fact.

 

If you all want to interpret a partial email as a threat without looking at the entire email conversation, that's fine. Just remember that when you are writing an email to a parent and they might chose to send PART of your comment to the newspaper.

It's atonishing to me that educated people could be so gullible to assume that a partial comment would be sufficient to judge the circumstances. I thought you were educating children so they can think critically for themselves and make sound decisions based on facts and circumstances. Isn't that one of the things this website supposedly stands for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TR1982,

 

I have been wondering for some time if you are serious. The more I read your posts the more it seems like you are pulling a Punk'd or Candid Camera on us. I just have a hard time believing what you write and how you write it is authentic. It often seems so utterly absurd and childish. I am wondering if it isn't time to give you kudos for the farce you have been propagating on us. I have to admit you had me going. I really did think you were an insurance agent working in the industry. I appreciate a good joke as much as anyone. Well done.

 

Dan Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TR,

 

Your analogy is absurd. If I were a parent, I would hardly see the partial e-mail as a threat. I would see it as a statement of fact, i.e., my child will fail the class. He/she has screwed up, and will face the consequences with a failing grade. Where is the threat?

 

I see two possibilities here:

 

1) Dan's assessment of you is correct, and you are just pulling our legs.

2) Dan's assessment of you is incorrect, and you really believe what you have been writing on this issue. You don't really see any bald-faced intimidation on the part of the AXA thug.

 

#2 is a far more disturbing possibility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading these posts and getting several chuckles. I see the email as a threat regardless of the content of the email. What makes it threating it is indicating a course action be taken against the individual if he doesn't cease. Also if TR is so concerned about the facts and hearing both sides, then maybe TR should take on the task of finding the facts, but I bet TR is happy being ignorant and will remain ingnorant.

 

I found the article informative and as a result it shows how we should be more cautious about our retirement options in 403b. We had a situation at my place of employment where a financial advisor was attempting to set up retirement accounts in a 403b offering annuties. Several individuals including me wanted mutual funds only were told that wasn't an option, and I opted out. However there were several emails from the advisor suggesting we meet because he may have something else that may suit my retirement needs. I finally replied and told him that I wasn't interested in his services and the emails stopped. What it appears to me is that these financial advisors entering schools prey on the ignorance of teachers and often con them into these high fee annuties. I recently opened a 403b with my finacial advidor and he steered me away from annuties to mutual funds only.

 

Finally after hearing TR's tirad about the facts and both sides of the story I continue to educate myself and colleagues regarding 403b options.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally after hearing TR's tirad about the facts and both sides of the story I continue to educate myself and colleagues regarding 403b options.

 

 

Cygnus,

 

You are part of a fledgling movement of folks who want to help colleagues take care of their own financial futures. Because of this, you, too, may find agents who are hostile, and perhaps even threatening to you.

TR, of course, will see no harm in this because, after all, who can really be absolutely, positively, 100% certain beyond any doubt at all that local agents may be threatening you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TR1982

 

Finally after hearing TR's tirad about the facts and both sides of the story I continue to educate myself and colleagues regarding 403b options.

 

 

Cygnus,

 

You are part of a fledgling movement of folks who want to help colleagues take care of their own financial futures. Because of this, you, too, may find agents who are hostile, and perhaps even threatening to you.

TR, of course, will see no harm in this because, after all, who can really be absolutely, positively, 100% certain beyond any doubt at all that local agents may be threatening you?

 

 

Of course, you can't. So it would be safe to assume that all advisers will threaten you (since we know that's what they teach in advisor school). Understand that advisors generally carry an assortment of weapons (subpoeanas, knives, guns, etc.) and ARE NOT afraid to use them if they sense that a prospect might say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TR,

 

One could infer from your sarcasm that you do not believe threats are made by your cohorts. In fact, threats are made.

 

However, contrary to your assertion, they are not normally made regarding the gain or loss of one client. They are made when someone tries to change the way your business is conducted. Thus, when a teacher holds meetings that teach others how to manage their own 403bs, the existing agents fear that they will lose their commission annuity. Instead of responding with a legitimate argument justifying the commission based products, they attempt to strike the troublemaker. At least this has been my personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...