I have two observations here: First it is much easier to tear down than to build up and second the person tearing down an idea or product or project almost always could not come up with a better way of doing something if they were asked. And yet they are a self proclaimed expert on why something stinks or is a scam etc.

Think about this, what qualifies someone to be considered an expert on any certain topic, product, etc.? If said person/ so called expert cannot come up with a better or superior method of building a similar product, should we really consider them as an expert? So when a non-expert in a certain field or area comments on a product should we value their negative comments any more an any other non-expert? I myself, could not rely on this type of individual but would look at it further.

Please don't misunderstand me I certainly don't want to infer you must be an expert to be critical of a product or service.

We really need to re-evaluate how we view what we observe around us - number one, when a person slanders a product our natural tendency is to take their ranting and negative attitude as the gospel truth. A wiser person would initially doubt their ranting and slurs because of the following reasons.

1. The majority of folks tend to be critical, instead of seeing the good side of a situation they cannot help but think of all the negative things that could happen.

2. There is nothing, even if it is very good, that will have 100% customer acceptance. If nothing else competitors will be hurt by it, and it is some of these people who will lambaste your product as being a scam or no good. If it is taking business away from them they might even resort to lying. Your competitors would love to see your product fail as they might pick up your customers..

3. People that aren't accomplishing anything have the time to complain. It takes real time, effort and practice to create something great. The critic on the other hand has much more free time to find a blemish in an otherwise great product and try to make a "mountain out of a molehill".

How can a person scrutinize a skeptic and whether you can believe what is being said by them? Firstly, know that there are various kinds of criticism and negativism against a product or service. There are always the usual skeptics of the product that will express dissatisfaction. Here you should examine the number of dissatisfied verses satisfied users. If there are a great number of dissatisfied users, then it is a sign the product just isn't much. If you see a lot of testimonies of people happy with the product, then it is probably a very good product even though some negative skeptics may exist. Think of it like this; as popular as Hawaii is for a vacation, there will always be those who wish they were somewhere else.

Here are some pointers to look for concerning the honesty of a critic:

1. The first potential giveaway that a critic is being less than honest is that their article, etc., is it's virtually all-negative. Even bad products usually have something good to say about them.

Look at the all the evidence first. A product that's been around for several years with plenty of positive press is almost always good despite any criticism.

2. A truly bad product almost never survives very long and you probably won't find much positive press on it.

3. Sometimes something is called a scam, well a scam is a scam only if the customer is truly ripped off. A scam doesn't refund customer money. A good product often will come with a longer than normal guarantee, scammy products won't.

Lastly, but not least I want to cover what I call the "assassin on a mission to destroy." Under no circumstances should you believe these types. Most of the time they go out of their way to under-handedly criticize a product, because the product they're attacking is so good and effective they fear losing business to it. Or they're doing the bidding of someone, in the role of the duped sap as that other person stands to lose big time if the product really succeeds.

If you see where a lot of resources and time is being spent on webpages, newsletters, forums and similar things, that are trashing product, especially one that is several years old and successful, and has a tremendous amount of positive talk about it. Then it is time to wonder about the integrity of the skeptic. Usually the skeptic won't mention whether the product works or not, instead will search for something someone says that they can use to attack the product. An example would be a product that has enjoyed tremendous success and some well intending excited marketing person will spout off about the product and end up saying it will do more it was built to do. The dishonest skeptic will not examine the product against what the company says it will do, but instead against what an overzealous distributor has said. They'll ignore what the company says and instead call it a scam because it doesn't do something for which it was never intended.

Consider how ridiculous and dishonest it is that the skeptic is calling it a scam because it doesn't do what it was never advertised to do. Now the skeptic has become the real scammer.