Over my years as a blogger, many - an - IBO has called me a loser. I decided to look at dicitonary.com for a defintion and here's what I found:
One that fails to win: the losers of the game.
One who takes loss in a specified way: a graceful loser; a poor loser.
One that fails consistently, especially a person with bad luck or poor skills: "losers at home seeking wealth and glory in undeveloped countries" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
One that is bad in quality: That book is a real loser
And: an inept person; an undesirable or annoying person; a social failure. : Those guys are all losers. They'll never amount to anything.
The owner of Amway, Rich DeVos made a speech sometime ago, stating that IBOs should not refer to people not interested in Amway, as losers. And it is not the Amway corporation or Amway employees that call others "losers". It is some IBOs in some LOSs that coined the phrase. But when I took a closer look at the definition, I could see that truly, it is IBOs who fit the definition better than the rest of the population. Amway's biggest defender, IBOfightback, is the one who said many times that "most" IBOs don't do anything, not even place an order. Wouldn't that already make these IBOs "losers"? What about those who try very hard but never make profits? Wouldn't that make them "losers"?
The average IBO earns less than $200 a month (Amway's figures) which is well below the US poverty line. Does that make the average IBO a "loser"?
Diamond is the pinnacle of Amway success, if you have ever seen an Amway 6-4-2 or 9-4-2 "plan". But only 1 in 10,000 or 20,000 ever reach diamond. (Those figures may be lower) Are the rest of the IBOs "losers"? Those functions must be filled with losers?
If IBOs and AMO leaders wish to continue to use the term "loser", perhaps they should learn the definition and look in the mirror before using the term?