Re: audio snakeoil!
From: Kryten (kryten_droid_obfusticator_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: tim gorman: "Re: Copying Eproms?"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: Let me try a trick"
- In reply to: john jardine: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Next in thread: Terry Given: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Reply: Terry Given: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Reply: john jardine: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 16:59:07 GMT
"john jardine" <john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cotsqn$gn9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Hang my head and admit to designing a 'biostatic field generator' for a
> customer.
And what exactly is that?
If it isn't generating anything, you've swindled your customer.
> (hey, I've a car to pay for!).
Perhaps you should invest in an ethics course.
Or did you pay someone to sit the exam for you? :-O
Bribing the examiner might work too :->
You may feel you already have the best conscience that money can buy <grin!>
> To my mind harmless junk but looks
> good, with the flashing lights, clicky things and field meshing.
Doesn't that make you a knowing accessory to fraud?
Your customer might be stupid enough to believe his own crap, but you know
better.
You call it harmless junk, but what if some lass finds a lump in her breast
or skin blemish. She goes to some quack, nothing happens, pays for more
sessions, things get worse. Eventually goes to real doctor who diagnoses
cancer.
Cancer recovery rates fall rapidly the later they are caught,
as do many other problems.
Don't kid yourself, these quacks are harmful parasitic vermin.
> The 'alternative' guy is doing business offering sessions with banks of
> these things. Advertised with merest hints of 'tonic' 'pick-me-up',
> 'vitalisation', the customers are happy to hand money over.
Just because the victims are happy, that does not make it right.
Nor should we allow quacks to prey on the gullible.
> Have realised now that the general public don't really give a damn as to
> whether quack methods have any technical merit. It seems a question of how
> well they feel they will be pampered to by the supplier of the service.
> High
> quality of pampering = high charges.
Again, that is no reason they should be allowed to continue.
I've known doctors and nurses, they work bloody hard to deliver real care.
It is outrageous that people waste their money on quacks instead.
> It's a quality of life thing,
Conning people does not improve quality of life.
> the equipment and machinery is simply stage dressing.
This is not theatre, this is props for con men.
> Just the same idea as a doctors 'bedside manner' or paying a
> therapist to listen to you talk, or using those bottles of 'good'
> bacteria
> as advertised on telly.
If you want to pay extra to have more bedside manner, pay a doctor.
If you want to pay extra to have emotional counsel, pay a therapist.
They sell the real service they provide.
Don't give money to crooks.
> Real problems turn up when conmen start claiming they can cure illness.
They are conmen, and they push their claims as far as they can.
If you are not ill, there is no reason to consult them.
They even use the term "wellness" to avoid the legally significant word
"health".
Richard the Troll said modern medicine was no nearer the answers than the
man in the moon.
Obviously he hasn't checked out how life expectancies have increased with
modern medicine.
For most of human history, you were lucky to live to be forty.
- Next message: tim gorman: "Re: Copying Eproms?"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: Let me try a trick"
- In reply to: john jardine: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Next in thread: Terry Given: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Reply: Terry Given: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Reply: john jardine: "Re: audio snakeoil!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|