Part of the reason I want the specific reforms I want is because ordinary, not-terribly-gullible parents get sucked in because they expect consumer protection laws that aren't there.
You were suckered and lied to. At the same time, *part* of it is that you were gullible. There's a reason some desperate parents get sucked in and some don't.
I don't say that to hurt you or make the focus on you. I say it because part of getting change is for all of us to work together to understand why you and other parents like you didn't get your red flags and bullshit detectors triggered hard enough, and fix that.
As a society, what we've found effective to stop MLM schemes, shell games, Nigerian email cons, Ponzi schemes, swampland in Florida cons, buying the Brooklyn Bridge cons----what we've found effective is publicizing the cons.
Yes, it's effective to characterize the people who fall for it as dopes. Not because you really are a dope, but because none of the potential *future* fraud victims wants to be a dope. Characterizing people who buy the Brooklyn Bridge as dopes, and people who sell it as weasely scum, is what gets the attention and sticks in the mind of the people who might fall for the con in the future, so that they *don't*.
And then you follow that publicity campaign with the real life stories of people like you. You're probably a very nice person, and like most nice people you have too hard a time believing other people can be "not nice" for your own good. You're nice, and you probably really want to believe in the good intentions of others. And if you've surrounded yourself all your life with nice people (and who doesn't want to do that?), then your experience of the people around you has probably almost always been one where you *could* count on the other guy's good intentions.
The real life stories of people like you, *after* the ad campaign of dopes buying swampland from weasels gets their attention, convinces people who *would* have been victimized someday that it *can* happen to them, and keeps them out of the clutches of the con-men running this scam.
See, that "I trusted and had no reason not to at the time" is telling.
For *me*, "This guy wants a lot of my money and is offering results I really want," is enough reason not to trust at the time. When someone knows I'm desperate and offers to help, but wants to be paid for it, that's a reason right there to start asking very hard questions.
There is always reason not to trust people who are in business to fix your car, fix your roof, manage your money, or educate your kid---especially residentially. There is always reason not to trust someone who is going to do surgery on you. There is always reason not to trust someone who is selling you insurance.
It doesn't mean you don't send your kid to school, or put your car in the shop, or fix your roof, etc.
But a whole *lot* of people for certain kinds of big, high-stakes things where there's a lot of potential for abuse *always* go in reading the fine print and asking the question, "Yes, but what if this guy is a con-man?"
You weren't dumb (or stupid or irresponsible), you just had a far too trusting general worldview.
I'm only pointing this out because it sounds like you still might. You've accepted that those specific rotten people suckered you and lied to you---but I can't tell if you've embraced a life-appropriate level of general paranoia. :smile: :smile: :smile:
The thing is, there are always going to be a lot of people *without* a life-appropriate level of general paranoia. Which is why we have consumer protection laws, and why we need better consumer protection laws and enforcement mechanisms for this industry.
The marketing folks are *always* expert liars.
In *any* business.
It's their job.
Timoclea
