Re: virus: Sham(an) again

Tim Rhodes (
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)

Here we go again...

On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:

> After catching up on the Shamen thread I regret I wasn't here
> to support Wade who seemed to be attacked, not so because he
> was wrong, but because he was politically incorrect to suggest
> another culture might be mistaken about something. Well we
> don't have to leave our own culture to find a shaman, ours are
> called psychics and you can talk to them on the phone for
> only $4.50/minute. Does anyone here doubt that psychics are
> shams?

(heavy sigh) Okay, once more for the kids in the back row...

Your premise (paraphrased): "Telephone psychics are the equivalent in
our society to the Shaman in a 'traditional' society."

Your (self-evident) point: "Tele-psychics are a sham."

And your conclusion: "Therefore Shaman are shams."

A wonderful bit of reasoning, David. And the conclusion does, in fact
follow from the premise.

Too bad the premise is so far off the mark. (Or can you demonstrate
otherwise, without working backwards from the conclusion you *want* to

-Prof. Tim