> I only go as far as saying-
>
> 1) Both con men and shamans leave their clients in the dark.
> 2) Are shaman perhaps con men?
1) Both poodles and Wade are potty trained.
2) Is Wade perhaps a poodle?
> I grant you that the evidence for shamans leaving their clients in the dark
> is only that of there being no gathered body of knowledge freely available
> to the general public.
I'm new to this crazy "science" thingy. Does your "science" accept that a
lack of data is a evidence? Strange "science" you practice, Wade.
Strange indeed...
> Which is of course not true for practically anything else...
Really? Wow!!! I guess science can stop right now, since there is "a
body of gathered knowledge freely available" about practically everything!
(Ahhh... Ain't life grand! Another pina-colada, Cabana-boy!!!)
> except confidence games. Actually, I take that back- there is
> probably much more available knowledge about confidence games than there is
> about shamanism, at least the practice of it....
Why? Maybe con-men pose a greater risk and therefore there is a greater
need to understand (and thwart) them?
Or maybe it just owes to the fact that lazy intellectuals would rather
dismiss the Shaman than take the time to study and learn /about/ them, if
not /from/ them.
> >I beg of you, show me where to find this oft touted but as yet
> >unseen information you speak of!!!
>
> Uh, the library? The journals of the professions? Internationally published
> magazines? PBS? Time-Life books? What are you talking about?
I was talking about the information proving conclusively that Shamans
purposefully deceive their clients only for their own material gain.
Wasn't that your premise? ("Shamans are like con-men" -Wade) Where did
you get this myth and why do you hold it despite a lack of evidence?
> And, I am not a jargon-spouting professional.
>
> And I don't want to get lost in this.
Too, too late...
-Prof. Tim