Steve Pavlina bash-sites

[Gozunn]

Hi everyone! I've noticed there are alot of Steve Pavlina bashers, you might flame me for checking them out but I always like to keep an open mind. I don't agree with these sites because they are trying to judge Steve from claims which are entirely of their own persepctives.

Stevepavlina.com « The Internet Explorer

This site is the most prominent (IMO) of the anti-steve pavlina groups.

These people basically use the whole brainwashing theme and make a wonderful buffet out of it. Anyways been there seen it already a million times. But what's interesting is that this maroon of a person is trying to challenge Steve into some sort of debate. (Don't just read the article, read some of the comments as well)

Now I'm not saying Steve HAS TO answer this guy but I would like him to be aware of these kind of comments made to him (I'm sure that if he has the time to answer this fool he would totally downgrade him ade(just like he downgraded the guy who attacked polyphasic sleeping, nice one steve )).

This person has a blog which attacks all sites which are 'bullshit' and I find that rather pathetic to say the least.


As I can predict some of you people's reactions to this you will say that "I'm one of them in disguise" or something. Sorry if this offends anyone or puts me in a different light. I AM NOT IN REALIZATION of anything that this post symbolyses. My motive is for steve to be aware of these people not for anything else that your analytical lenses might put me through.

If this is in any way a violation of the rules then please delete this post. I don't want to be banned for this meaningless post, I love this community and I seriously don't want to harm my credibility by it.

I'm defending myself from now because I believe that this is a controversial topic that could easily blow up in MY face. If it is THAT much of a controversy then please delete this post, I have had this happen to me many times. My intentions (towards Steve) are good, please believe me.

[John P]

I went and read as much of that article as I could stand... it wasn't much.

Here's my question to you. Why should Steve waste his time responding to that article? Or any article like that? The guy you linked to has no room in his head for the belief that Steve is anything but a pretentious ******.

It did amuse me though that the guy has clearly spent a great deal of time at Steve's site reading his articles. The fact that Steve makes him so angry shows that something is hitting home.

[ellie]

Sounds like he needs some motivation

It was a boring blog, the comments made it interesting.

[CeciL]

I've been reading Steve's site since Polyphasic days. I joined the forum when it opened. I like the people here, however I personally believe Steve's direction is going down hill.

LoL, check out this one I found...

Steve Pavlina Sucks

[ellie]

hhhmmm Cecil judging by you linked site, your a steve hater too. At least the second article was written well

[DayInTheLife]

Cynicism and criticism are just common, self-indulgent pastimes. The target could be anyone. No big deal.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ellie

Sounds like he needs some motivation

It was a boring blog, the comments made it interesting.

Yes! Isn't it shocking that Erin herself made a comment over there about what an ******* Steve is?

[Joeschmoe]

When faced with uncomfortable truths people will go through 3 stages.

1)Denial
2)Violent Opposition
3)Acceptance

I got this from "Earthlings," what a life changing film. The blogger seems to smack in the middle of #2. I wonder what truth he was faced with?

[Kylark]

Even though I'm a huge Steve Pavlina fan, I thought that article was pretty funny.

And there is some truth to this:

Is there really any shame earning a paycheck building the homes we live in, installing the cable TV we love to watch, and digging the graves we'll be thrown into when we die? No way. Just imagine what would happen if everyone tried making their living writing a blog like Steve Pavlina - six billion people starving to death, complaining on the internet how much starving to death sucks in an increasingly strange, incoherent fashion.

Ironically enough, this guy has ads on his site

[sheffy4]

Steve is meeting violent opposition. I guess that means is really "made it!"

I don't understand the idea that Steve's site could be a "scam." All his content is free, and even if people click on the ads, it's not like they paying anything, google adsense is paying. And donations of course are voluntary.

And if that comment was really by Erin, then she has the best sense of humor ever!

[missing]

well one thing Steve has on these two is that he's a good writer. I often come away from his articles with a new perspective on some aspect of life. Can't say I learned anything new from these bashers. Gee, you think I haven't thought about the fact that his site is loaded with ads? Or that if everyone dropped out of the rat race people would starve? That he doesn't allow comments? Did I really need some dufus to point this stuff out to me? Not to mention that Steve has already responded to these points on his site. In fact, to those hoping for a response from Steve to these articles, just do a search on his site. He already has responded to most of these criticisms.

I take issue with certain things Steve Pavlina says. I certainly don't think a criticism of him would be out of line, but for chrissakes make it more intelligent than these guys.

And as others mentioned the content on this site is free. You can take what you find useful, leave the rest, and not pay a dime. How is that a "scam"? Huh?

[Erin Pavlina]

LOL, no I didn't leave that comment but at least they put a link to my site. That was nice of them.

[Kent F]

Stupidly funny stuff. Can a negative site be monetized? Hypocritically speaking - I suppose so.

Kent F.

[Steve Pavlina]

Bashing bloggers is basically a linkbaiting tactic to try to grow a site's traffic. Some people figure that if they post some trash talk about you, you'll turn it into a public fight on your own blog, thereby sending them lots of traffic. They'll even email you their links and challenge you to defend yourself on your own blog. But it only works if they attack a blogger who's not very savvy and inclined to take the bait. I've seen a few top bloggers fall for this tactic, but when they do, it just encourages more of the same.

What's to defend though? Just take it as a compliment and be appreciative of the free links. Half the stuff they write is probably true anyway, and the other half isn't even about you.

[Dive Bomb]

I have to laugh at these so called "attacks". Are you kidding me? This is the best stuff they can fire at Steve? I won't repeat the analysis of the ridiculous details. I will say that I believe Steve is only going to rise in popularity. The content of his blog posts are strong and unperdictable. You do not know what he is going to upload next.

His book is another factor we can not forget. Now Steve is entering into the world of traditional media. This will no doubt attract myriads of new fans, but it will also attract more critics. Regardless, Steve wil handle it and I feel this is only the begining to the already impressive life resume of Steve Pavlina.

[Steve Pavlina]

Bloggers also inherit some criticism from whatever field they're in. For example, some people are soured on the notion of self-help (often because they tried to improve in some way, suffered setbacks, and gave up), so they'll just attack you for being part of that field. It really isn't personal.

[jamestl2]

I've done this sort of thing before on my blog (Not to Steve or the forums, but to another popular site, which I don't really want to start something here about.), and it wasn't personal or anything.

Sometimes people create these type of posts to point out the faults of the website, and they use the most perplexing method available to generate the most shock value from it (speaking from personal experience here). And also some may also take the chance to soak up the examples of criticism as ways of improving their own site or community.

However in some cases, other people will just go around saying "Your site blows" with no substance to build their accusations upon, and thus are commonly ignored by the administrator of the blog or forum (such as Steve in this case).

While using these sorts of methods to draw attention, they can work pretty effectively, as showcased here just by the creation of this thread, and the links freely generated towards them, they can also bring up negative feelings and backlash from the readership and community. Either way, as ridiculous as the post may be, it generates free publicity for the denouncer doing the criticizing.

[CeciL]

Originally Posted by ellie

hhhmmm Cecil judging by you linked site, your a steve hater too. At least the second article was written well

Just because I can Google doesn't make me a Steve hater, I didn't start this thread lol, I just thought it was funny

[Kaspian]

There are cases where you give your critics more credibility by defending yourself. Likewise, ignoring them implies that their remarks are so off-based that it's not worth the time and energy to respond. These blog attacks strike me as the latter.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by John P

It did amuse me though that the guy has clearly spent a great deal of time at Steve's site reading his articles. The fact that Steve makes him so angry shows that something is hitting home.

Say anything you want about me but spell my name right or in this case give the correct URL for my site. I think if someone comes across this anti Pavlina blog and is not familiar with Steve's work they will possibly visit and check the blog and forums out for themselves. That could be a good thing.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Gene

Say anything you want about me but spell my name right or in this case give the correct URL for my site. I think if someone comes across this anti Pavlina blog and is not familiar with Steve's work they will possibly visit and check the blog and forums out for themselves. That could be a good thing.

In practice that's exactly what happens. The people who bash you just end up doing your marketing for you.

Even so, if you read some of the negative stuff written about you with the idea of raising your own awareness, it can actually be helpful. I'm certainly not perfect and have plenty of learning and growing to do. Sometimes reading an exaggerated version of what others believe are my shortcomings helps me see myself from a different perspective.

[Frans]

An anagram of "Steve Pavlina" is "Evasive plant"
so, maybe the people behind these bash-sites are just frustrated gardeners

[Natsu]

Originally Posted by Gozunn

This person has a blog which attacks all sites which are 'bullshit' and I find that rather pathetic to say the least.

Agreed. Because, you see, there are billions of websites in the internet. And I'm sure this guy attacks sites which are (according to him) "bullshit", but FAMOUS. I bet he doesn't criticise Juan Lopez or Jon Smith's blog-which-is-like-a-million-other-ones. That wouldn't do well in a google search, while "Steve Pavlina is an Ass" may appear pretty high in the search list, just after Steve's blog and the proverbial Wikipedia entry. Another ridiculous basher trying to ride on other person's fame. He is just trying to get attention by going against the current... but against the current of someone already famous. Not a bad idea, but you have to provide good info to go against the current. Going against the current to say that cows can fly is not something that will make you seem intelligent.

I read his article. It was basically stupid. It totally ignored the amazing load of useful information that Steve provides in his site. I mean, do you remember the States of Consciousness? I donated to Steve just for giving me that article, so much it gave to me. Just knowing about the states of consciousness raises your state of consciousness.

I was never interested in self-help books because I tried a few and they gave only either too obvious advice or no advice at all. For me, Steve serves as a filter. I don't like reading non-fiction, and I don't like personal development as a subject enough to spend the vast amount of time Steve spends reading and reviewing personal development stuff. Steve does the filtering of the stuff, and I pretty trust that when he finds something important or useful, he will tell me. The article ignores that, because it's too worried in thinking, self-importantly, that "I'm cleverer than all the people who read Steve Pavlina's blog". Not clever enough to convince me that he has something to offer.

I have read honest and harsh criticism of Pavlina. Most of it comes from its readers, lots of it comes from Steve himself. All those criticisms were more useful than that website. Steve may not be perfect, sure, but reading his blog I learn. Steve provides something for me. That critic didn't. And that's the worse I can say about anyone.


Stupid fallacies this guy says:

If stevepavlina truly was successful due to PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, he wouldn’t be scamming people with ads and donations today.

Yeah, because money growns on the trees. Maybe he should have written a book, which people like me, for example, would never have bought. Because giving your articles for free is so wrong.

Maybe this guy, in his hubris, does not understand that we are given the choice NOT to donate and NOT to click in the ads. I don't click in the ads and only donated when I had money to. And only for the article I think really changed my life for the better (it was deserving). Oh, and I also bought the photoreading course with Steve's code of discount, I guess Steve got something out of it, but I got a pretty impressive discount myself, so that's a quid pro quo.

Note : Every article’s introduction comes with big fat advertisement beside it. Since when was advertisements part of personal development ?

Have you ever seen a fallacy such as this one? Since when do advertisement confront, fight, impede, infer, stop, damage or hurt personal development at anything? What has the fact the site is ad-supported have to do with personal development? This is ridiculous. It would be like criticising a tv channel for putting ads in "Lost", because, since when was advertisements part of a planewreck history? Ads are not part of personal development, you moron. They are part of Steve's way of making a living.

Nice on the outside, EVIL MONEY MAKING MACHINE on the inside.

There's people who smuggle weapons. I'd call them evil money making machines. There's horrible people who kidnap girls in poor countries and force them to prostitute themselves. Those are evil money making machines. There are CEOs who pollute lakes and provoke the burning of forest, just to make money. They are evil money making machines. There are company owners who rise the prices of subsistence products, such as houses, eggs or milk. They are evil money making machines.

There is a guy, who asks for donations and gives the rest of his work for free. I'd say "money making". To be a "machine" he'd have to pass the million dollars a year.

But the fallacies go on and on. Italics mine:

The article’s purpose was to trigger any negative opinions one may have about Stevepavlina. I really wanted to know for sure, if Steve is really the great person he is. I used to be an avid supporter.

If he was, then everyone would definitely hate me and support Steve.
Somehow, there were a surprisingly large number of people who had some negative views about Steve.

That's such a huge fallacy that it even has a name. It's called "fallacy ad populum", which means, you say something is true, because lots of people think it's true. So, in the Middle Ages, the Earth was flat because everyone thought so. When confronted to this argument, us Spanish have a saying: "100.000.000.000 flies can't be wrong: let's all eat ****".