Bunny-resurrection across the nation

mi naw go nowhere, mi eyes see pon clear



Would this legislation extend only to people you were in theological disagreement with or would it be a law encompassing all things science has trouble handling, like, say, other belief-model metaprograms pertaining to the astral, the immaterial, the unseen or the immeasurable?

How would these disclaimers have to look?

Essentially, what would you have it say on the doors of a house of meditation and w*****p?

/intrepid bunny

Wow! So we should also expose SOT and even more than the IT loop...

Think about that... if one falls for a IT loop it will certainly fall for SOT... and more than ever if the psychic will sell SOT as a genuine paranormal ability he has that allows him to find a dead person among the living just by touching the index cards with the names... or to discern the different colors / values of the playing cards just by receiving the correct vibrations from his fingers!


And while we are at it while not exposing the workings of something in the lectures of Rowland because... you made me really think about it... and I would not want those people believe that predictions and mind-reading are possible... otherwise they will fall prey of a wrong belief!

Oh... and by the way, some of you "defenders of exposure" just need to concord on your ideas.

Some of you say that people forget the 99% of what has been exposed on TV after few months (or it was weeks?)

But if this is the case, it goes against the ideas expressed by some others that say exposure will put people on guard against psychic scams ... my question is then, for how long? Until they forget all in a few months (or weeks) and they are again "vulnerable" ?

Others of you say that the thing exposed are so simple that anyone could have figured out those methods for themselves. My question is then, if it is so why would have been necessary that someone revealed those simple methods on tv?


Paolo

Just watched the videos... exposing “psychics” who plainly rip people off may be ok (I am however reminded of a Murphy’s law, stating something like “it is morally unfair that a fool keeps his money”…)

On the other hand, IT exposure is unacceptable. I won’t buy anything from Rowland again

Ken

That's not what I'm saying. I disagree with exposure and I do not think that it is effective in educating people against fraud. My point was merely that people DO fall for this kind of con.



If it does not charge money, then it doesn't need to say anything. But if it charges for a service it should be as accountable as any other business. Particularly if it claims to be able to substantiate it's claims.

If I sell alternative medicine that doesn't work then I am guilty of fraud. It is my responsibility to my customers that what I sell is what they agreed to pay for and that it is effective for its purpose. Just because this proof is difficult for me to obtain does not make me exempt from my obligation to provide it. Nor does claiming that it comes from God.

You don't have to prove why something works to prove that it works. If I'm not sure of the positive effect of my product how can I be sure it has no negative impact?