A few days ago one of our readers noted that the AdSurfDaily case is much more interesting than, say, the Bernard Madoff case.

We agree.

The Madoff case was about the collapse of a Ponzi at the point of maximum strain. Strain on the general economy is what brought Madoff down. He simply ran out of Joes to pay Josephines and Peters to pay Pauls. The Feds showed up to hear the confession — and that was that.

There was appropriate wailing and gnashing of teeth, of course. The big question was why the Feds didn’t move sooner. It’s a fair question, but it’s also a question that serves as a key point of departure and makes the ASD investigation much more interesting.

While Madoff’s customers jeered the government for not acting sooner to prevent the Ponzi from mushrooming, some of ASD’s customers jeered the government for stopping the Ponzi from mushrooming. They’re still doing it — even post-Madoff.

One does not encounter such fractured thinking on an everyday basis, unless one is following the ASD case closely. As recently as last week, one apologist for ASD President Andy Bowdoin offered that the company never would run out of customers because the world’s daily birthrate exceeded its death rate.

Madoff must be kicking himself for not running  the birthrate defense up the flagpole before ratting himself out to the FBI — or perhaps he recognized that his own Ponzi collapsed even with the birthrate advantage.

Just today a Mod at the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum said a prosecution claim that there were thousands of ASD victims was a “bald-faced lie!”

Exclamation points are not like garlic to Bowdoin apologists, which is to say they’re not used sparingly.

Why did Andy Bowdoin have champions in certain quarters and Madoff did not? Why did Bowdoin get folk-hero treatment in certain quarters and Madoff did not?

Greed. Criminality. Monumental stupidity.

Unlike Madoff, Bowdoin still had Joes to pay Josephines and Peters to pay Pauls when the Ponzi was exposed, a circumstance his blackly comedic cheerleaders seized to create the appearance of plausible Ponzi deniability. He also had a natural constituency of greedy people willing to sell their souls to keep the world safe for their Ponzi profits.

No amount of rationalizing is out of bounds: If Grandma is on Food Stamps now, Grandma needs to blame the government, not Bowdoin. After all, Grandma is an adult and had the duty to know the government is corrupt and actually enjoys the thought she has been made destitute.

At the same time, Bowdoin had like-minded criminals with a vested interest in clouding the issues, owing to fear of getting arrested or sued (or both). Meanwhile, he had people who couldn’t spell Ponzi if you spotted them all five letters and sounded it out.

AdSurfDaily was an obvious Ponzi scheme that relied on wordplay to insulate itself from Ponzi claims. The Feds moved in, seizing Andy Bowdoin’s asssets and preventing a Madoff-style collapse. The real world applauds such an event.

Top autosurf players and people with civil and criminal exposure, however, do not. They lie to their downlines. They paint the government as evil and say things such as “rebates aren’t guaranteed.”

Here is what “rebates aren’t guaranteed,” a so-called “genius” business concept, really means. (Just don’t expect to read it spelled out clearly in the Terms of Service for an autosurf.)

Our business model is to draft you into a conspiracy to sell unregistered securities and engage in wire-fraud and money-laundering by advertising an unreal rate of return of 30 percent a month and masking the true nature of our business. We call it ‘advertising’ sales as opposed to ‘securities’ sales.

We are criminals using the cover of MLM.

The tip-off that we are criminals can be found in our preposterous claim that we are able to pay out $1.25 for each dollar we collect. What enables us to perpetuate this scheme is our ‘rebates aren’t guaranteed’ disclaimer.

Indeed, ‘rebates aren’t guaranteed’ permits us to ignore the debit side of the ledger and our constantly accruing liabilities. We’ll treat every dollar you send in as evidence of your intent to become criminals like us, and expect you to behave as such if we get caught. Ours is a wink-nod deal. ‘Rebates aren’t guaranteed’ is the ‘wink’; your acceptance is the ‘nod.’

We’ll send out a few strategic shills to explain that they have performed a ‘due diligence’ test on us and that we’re the real deal. These shills will position themselves and us as important, studious, thoughtful players in a real industry. Get acquainted with that word — ‘industry.’ The more we use it the more likely it will be that people will continue to send us money. ‘Industry’ makes us seem real.

If the Feds later claim we’re running a Ponzi scheme, we’re going to show them evidence that you agreed ‘rebates aren’t guaranteed.’ Our books will reveal upon inspection that we couldn’t possibly have addressed accrued liabilities based on the advertised pay-out rate. This is why ‘rebates aren’t guaranteed.’ We have to be able to wipe away liabilities in case the Feds come knocking.

It should be plain to you that you are a potential co-defendant in lawsuits and a criminal prosecution. You need to recognize that you are a potential co-defendant. In the coming days, we’ll show you in forums and in emails how to change the subject and obfuscate.

Remember: The more you obfuscate, the cloudier the issues become and the less likely it will be that you’ll actually get sued or arrested. It is to your benefit to obfuscate to reporters, radio hosts, TV hosts, politicians, inspectors general, DOJ supervisors and important members of Senate and House committees. Make sure you raise the issue of your Constitutional rights. This will provide cover for your obfuscations.

So, that’s our take. What’s yours?