Ruben J=F6nsson wrote:

>> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:=20
>>=20
>> See, the problem is to determine what is a con. As Herbert wrote,
>> one person's con is another person's life saver. I had a
>> life-changing experience with something that is called a total scam
>> by many others. I /really/ wouldn't prefer a government agency
>> having prohibited the event before I could participate. This despite
>> the fact that I don't buy what many others who participated said
>> about it, and I think if you take this, you could easily get to the
>> conclusion that it is a scam (for them). But for me it gave me
>> something that I don't think I'd easily could have gotten elsewhere.
>> So please let people make their own experiences.=20
>=20
> Would you mind sharing what this was?

It was a seminar held in Europe by a descendant of a Native American,
about some things that could be called Shamanism, Witch Doctoring, New
Age Crap, Scam, outrageous... depends on who you ask. For all I
understand, this guy doesn't have a good reputation with most Native
Americans who care about such matters, because they think that what he
does isn't really about their beliefs, but rather a mixture of several
ideas.=20

In any case a quite controversial event, and I went there for a cure. I
didn't find the cure in the way I thought I might find it, but found
something else that was just as, or maybe more, valuable. I don't think
that my experience can easily be transferred to someone else getting in
touch with something like this, and I'm pretty sure it can't be put in
terms that would a government agency let this happen as "healing event".

There are a number of good reasons to classify such an event as "scam"
and, in the cited logic, prohibit it to protect the consumers that may
lose their money and time attending.

Gerhard

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.