Thanks Carlos. That just reminded me of something: Steven Sashen, whose name keeps coming up on this forum, has yet another deal he's selling. He has an online book, Scriptwriting Secrets - Writing Your Million Dollar Story and claims to have created the industry-standard word processing software for film and television scriptwriters, called Scriptware. On top of that, he has created a company, Cinovation, Inc., to distribute Scriptware and other software "for the creative community."

From what you just said, it appears to be yet another cash cow for someone who only recently stopped openly selling coaching in the form of Byron Katie's "Work".

In fishing lingo, the technique of multi-enterprises reminds me of something we called a "trot-line", which is illegal in some states. You string a line across a river and position hooks every foot or so. You put worms, frogs or some other tempting (live) bait on the hooks and check the line daily. In a river that hosts many fish, you find a number of them waiting to be harvested every day. My point being, that if some of these enterprises are questionable, doesn't that fall under the category of unethical?

qd

Absolutely brilliant! That is EXACTLY what these guys do.
They set up a couple dozen TROT-LINES on the internet, and put some bait on them, and see if any fishes bite the hook. Then you reel them in, and gut them, and clean them out.

And the MOVIE-SCRIPT metaphor is perfect. These guys never sell a real screenplay, they just sell rip-off courses about it.
Like the real estate hucksters, they make their money off the seminars, not real estate.

Quote
quackdave
In fishing lingo, the technique of multi-enterprises reminds me of something we called a "trot-line", which is illegal in some states. You string a line across a river and position hooks every foot or so. You put worms, frogs or some other tempting (live) bait on the hooks and check the line daily. In a river that hosts many fish, you find a number of them waiting to be harvested every day. My point being, that if some of these enterprises are questionable, doesn't that fall under the category of unethical?

qd

Quote
quackdave
Thanks Carlos. That just reminded me of something: Steven Sashen, whose name keeps coming up on this forum, has yet another deal he's selling. He has an online book, Scriptwriting Secrets - Writing Your Million Dollar Story and claims to have created the industry-standard word processing software for film and television scriptwriters, called Scriptware. On top of that, he has created a company, Cinovation, Inc., to distribute Scriptware and other software "for the creative community."
qd

Is he still hawking that script writing crap? Fer chrissakes, he's like that Axis soldier who didn't surrender to the Allies until the 1970s. Some people never say die, not even when Final Draft has won.

Helpme2times posted some very interesting Usenet links, dating back to 1996 or so, all about Sashen's script software adventures. I couldn't find her exact ones, but you can search them up.

Here's the general link: [preview.tinyurl.com]

Great stuff in general I like how the nonsense is being dissected here but I would also like to say that I found Sparrows balance perspective of New agers vs Atheist skeptic to be quite refreshing. It is not an easy place to be, having a balanced perspective like that.

I am pretty sure that 'recovering' from newage mumbo-jumbo means just that. To recover from addiction, or let's just say unhelpful habits, does not one stop doing it as part of the process? In recovery from alcoholism, for example, the one looking to recover doesn't allow a little "taste" or "hair of the dog" or "homeopathical" (however minute) amount of alcohol into their system. A recovering nicotine addict does not have "just one", indeed they are best to steer clear of any situation where they might breathe in measurable amounts of cigarette smoke. So, if one wishes to recover from newage "speak" wouldn't they just stop it? Wouldn't it be best to do something different? Doesn't it make sense to avoid having anything to do with what you wish to recover from?

I have said this before, and it isn't all that popular of an opinion, but if you are hoping to stop it; you do just that: STOP IT. Knock it off. Go another way. Do something different. Move away from it. Give it up. Drop it. Cease and desist. The redundancy is my way of shaking off the newage (I say it like 'sewage') advice that keeps creeping into these threads. I feel it to be literally tacky, as in it kinda sticks to you, and not in a good way. I have to shake it off me, periodically.

I wish everyone well in their traversing through this very superstitious world we live in. If I believed in 'luck', I would say, "You'll need it."

qd

Hi QuackDave,

Your perspective is helpful, however remember that knowledge is power. You can't just leave something without understanding what you are leaving, so you don't just get stuck back in it again or something like it.

Quote
notanantiGnostic
Hi QuackDave,

Your perspective is helpful, however remember that knowledge is power. You can't just leave something without understanding what you are leaving, so you don't just get stuck back in it again or something like it.

Recognizing newage speak/mumbo-jumbo isn't all that difficult. How much understanding does one need to see it, avoid it and drop it? Although it may be good advice in some other situation, I don't see how your comment applies to the topic of this thread.

qd



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2009 11:05AM by quackdave.

Ok QuickDave,

I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I was not saying that you need to understand a cult or new age speach to leave it but understanding and knowledge is needed in order to leave it behind. Also since we do not want to be just attacking anyone for being spiritual or religious a clear level of understanding is required to understand what a problem group is and how they behave.

So when I said "You can't just leave something without understanding what you are leaving" I did not mean that literally as in don't leave the group without understanding it, I was trying to explain why people find value in trying to understand their experience and experiences like the one they went through. Clearly others agree as this discussion is now on page 15.

My comment applies to this discussion as I was rejecting your reductionist approach to the situation. The just do it or common sense approach can only take you so far in solving these kinds of problems.

Given that Newage thinking and jargon is also now so pervasive in the wider culture, it is fairly impractical to simply avoid all references.

My bosses have taken to spouting well-worn Newage cliches, (I guess it takes a lot less effort than thinking out a practical and workable management plan) and the more understanding I have of this vacuous Newagespeak and what is prompting it, the better job I can do at sorting the rare grain of wheat from the avalanche of chaff.

I have to understand what is meant and whether it is relevant to the situation at hand before I can decide to safely ignore it as so much hot air.

And so much of it is just hot air and an excuse to flap the lips. ;-)

Quote

I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I was not saying that you need to understand a cult or new age speach to leave it but understanding and knowledge is needed in order to leave it behind.

It is entirely possible that we are talking about two separate issues. My concern, I guess, is that there is a danger in over-thinking something that one is trying to divest themselves of. I fear that it might 'play into the hands' of manipulative, newage speaking/minded folks.

Quote

My comment applies to this discussion as I was rejecting your reductionist approach to the situation.

The term 'reductionist' seems to be categoric and judgmental to me. What's wrong with 'simplistic'? Our posts are, after all, our take on the subject and include the techniques that work for us. We share these in hopes that like minds will find something useful. I felt it was time for some simplicity, actually.

qd