Super-Mini-Site Profits Without Unadulterated Greed.
 

Hi,

This message is not for those who remain under the "sell-sell-sell" spell.
It is not for those who subscribe to "seduce-cajole-into-buying-with-a-killer-sales-letter" approach.

It is for people who believe that we can do well by doing GOOD.

What follows is a SUPER mini-site.

It offers a simple service.

Maybe this service is not for everyone to use or promote.

Nevertheless, it's a "phenomenon" or "Internet event".

It is evident that you CAN'T just stamp a "get your next visa-card" banner on this page.

The very nature of the site will force you to advertise something RELEVANT to the "topic".

Simon




Be Careful. This Might Offend Your Killer Instinct.

That site is an abomination.
 

Think of it... I can do whatever the heck I like and simply fob off being forgiven by writing in?

Sorry, the ONLY way to be forgiven is to ask it of the person who you wronged. Anything else is a cop out. And anything that promotes this worthless form of forgiveness is an abomination.

Michael Ross.

Re: That site is an abomination.
 

Unfortunately, even when the other person has forgiven them, a lot of humans won't forgive themselves....otherwise, there'd be no churches.
Worse yet is unearned guilt. Say someone who loves
his country and yet, because of stupid laws expatriates his money...the conflict brings on
guilt...but who the hell is he supposed to ask
for forgiveness? Congress? The police?

So, if it works for
the person, I say go for it...beats 10 years of
therapy.

> Think of it... I can do whatever the heck I
> like and simply fob off being forgiven by
> writing in?

> Sorry, the ONLY way to be forgiven is to ask
> it of the person who you wronged. Anything
> else is a cop out. And anything that
> promotes this worthless form of forgiveness
> is an abomination.

> Michael Ross.

Yeah, okay... But how do you make a buck from it?
 

I think forming your own religion would be a much more profitable venture. :)

Conmen say--It's morally wrong to let a sucker keep his money
 

Over thousands of years, human nature hasn't changed much.

What amazes me is that in a so-called modern society, how superstition prevails.

A survey in the US showed that 50% of the population believed in psychic phenomena--even tho there has NEVER been one proven documented case.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Cheers.
Thomas Berger

Psychic phenomena -- real or imagined?
 

Hi Thomas,

> Over thousands of years, human nature hasn't
> changed much.

> What amazes me is that in a so-called modern
> society, how superstition prevails.

> A survey in the US showed that 50% of the
> population believed in psychic
> phenomena--even tho there has NEVER been one
> proven documented case.
> Never let the facts get in the way of a good
> story.

It's true, there is a lot of superstition in modern society.... I don't think this will ever change. But -- what exactly is superstition?

I personally think psychic effects are an open question....

What guides me in this is partly the history of hypnosis.... In fact, I just wrote a brief post about hypnosis (here http://www.sowpub.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?read=5082 )....
If you go back about a hundred years, you'll find some people talking about "mesmerism" and "animal magnetism". This was dismissed as "superstition" by most of the scientific and medical establishment back then.... And actually, a lot of it was (it had nothing to do with magnets or magnetism, for example)....

BUT, there was a reality to it. "Mesmerism" and "Animal magnetism" was in reality what we call "hypnosis" today.... And although it's taken about a century, hypnosis is now known to be a real phenomenon. (See the Scientific American article on this I linked to in the other post....)

What I'm getting at is that I think often the best approach is to keep an open mind regarding these things.... We don't always know all the answers. Psychic effects may be myth and superstition, but I also think there is a possibility they could be real.... But I don't really know which it is.

The majority of scientists do not take the possibility of psychic phenomena seriously. However, there are a few highly eminent scientists who do take the study of these things very seriously.

One which springs to my mind is Hal Puthoff, who headed the US Army study on "Remote Viewing". If you do a search online for "Hal Puthoff" and "Remote viewing" you'll find some info. Hal Puthoff is a very eminent theoretical physicist -- more recently he's published papers in respectable physics journals like Physical Review A on possible connections between the zero-point energy and gravity....

The other eminent physicist which springs to my mind is Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for what's now called the Josephson effect. Josephson has spent quite a lot of the past couple decades seriously investigating psychic phenomena. Here is his home page from Cambridge University. Josephson is derided to a degree in the physics community for this research (despite his Nobel Prize), but I think someone of his achievements should be respected. It doesn't mean I believe in psychic phenomena (I'm non-commital on the issue) -- instead, I just try to keep an open mind.

Just like "mesmerism" and "animal magnetism" turned out to have strong elements of truth to them, who knows how the research on psychic phenomena will turn out? I find nature is much stranger than any fiction you could dream up -- so I prefer not to second-guess nature's ways. :)

Anyhow, this is really neither here nor there, but I thought I'd just chime in.... :)

Regarding the site that Simon posted about, I think there are psychological reasons why it could work, so the effect could be real for that reason....

- Dien Rice

The Demon Haunted World
 

Hi Dien,

Reading my last post made me realise that I failed to put my point across properly.

I just wanted to respond to Michael Ross' post. He was quite outraged about a site that asked you to write in for forgiveness. He called it an abomination.

My point was that most rational people would laugh it off as stupid. I thought that most people would respond as Adam Katz did...a bit of light hearted fun. But Michael took it so seriously.

Hence my post which really didn't put that point across very well. I rambled on about psychic and so on...you were probably wondering what I was on about.

What I was trying to say was something along the lines of Carl Sagan who wrote in The Demon Haunted World....that we are reaching a new Dark Ages in superstition and gulliblity. "Bad" science dominates in current affairs and media.
Ex pop singer Ronnie Burns hosts a documentary on TV about the end of the world where a myriad of psychics are quoted. Almost no scientific backing is given--almost all the people quoted are "psychics".

Talk back radio has pyschic's because they rate highly, and astrology forecasts are more popular than ever. Homeopathy has been proven to be a scam, but no shortage of followers.

We are in a "new age" where "bad" science gets media. People want to believe. And the media give the people what they want.

Just a bit about hypnotism--I'm not an expert, but Kreskin in the USA uses it in his mindreading act (as he has for the last 40 years) and disputes that there is something like hypnotism--he calls it heightened awareness. He has $100 000 reward to anyone who can prove the existance of hypnotism.

http://www.hypnosisinmedia.com/People/

Can't find the reward he is posting, but a short bit about him. The Scientific American article was interesting. It also mentioned the jury was out for treatment of drinking problems and other behavioural problems.

Finally, just a note about Hal Puthoff. He is no doubt a fine scientist, but the biggest mistake in his career was endorsing and promoting Uri Geller the spoon bender as the real thing.

Uri has been proven fake many years ago and there is even film footage on the net of him bending a spoon in his hands when he thinks no one is watching.
I do spoon bending myself in my professional act.
As a professional magician, I know first hand that the more intelligent people are the easiest people to fool. Puthoff and colleague Russell Targ wrote a book in the 70's totally endorsing Uri Geller, something I'm sure they wished they never did.

Thanks again for your response to my rambling post ealier on, Dien.
You obviously have a lot of patience.

Cheers.
Thomas Berger