Re: [UUPoly-L] Back to the Law (was RE: Rational skepticism(was:"law" of attraction))

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Michael:
<<I don't wish to be disrespectful to you, but your comment about the law of
attraction misstates the reality and misconstrues what I said.>>

If I've misconstrued it, then please clarify... you said that it's "set up
to be untestable"... coupled with your statement that it's a pyramid scheme
implies that the "Law of Attraction" was created (and the connotation is
that it was created as a scam.)  I read things in context, and I have a
pretty high level of comprehension, so if that's not what you meant, and
*you're* not just trying to score rhetoric points, please clarify what you
did mean. 

<<Your question about the similarities to a pyramid scheme was answered in
the original post.>>

Actually, the points you made in your post have nothing to do with a
"pyramid scheme".  A pyramid scheme is a multi-level marketing scam where
there is no actual product or service involved (if there's a product or
service, it's MLM, not a pyramid), which involves receiving money for
enrolling people into the scheme.  The primary characteristics of a pyramid
scheme are that people at the top of the pyramid receive monetary benefit
from those below them and that no real product or service is offered, the
primary income generated is from enrolling people into the scheme.  The Law
of Attraction has nothing to do with marketing... it's actually free
(although you have to understand it, and lots of people are paying money to
learn how to do that... just as lots of people, myself included, choose to
pay for water, which is also free.) No one gets a percentage if I teach you
about the Law of Attraction, nor did anyone get a percentage when I learned
it. They're entirely unrelated.