While I do agree that "befriending" is both possible and potentially dangerous, I have to admit that I've never quite understood why we naturally form some sort of identification between the speaker and what is spoken. I have (at least) several dozen regular or semi-regular contributors on SHAMblog, and though of course I may adopt a friendlier, more casual posture in dealing with
Forum: "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements"

Anticult et al: That is a very good point, about my too-broad use of the term "gullible," and you were right to call me on it. Perhaps I should have said "gullible or psychically vulnerable." And I'm sure there are other classes of folks who fall into the target demographic of these latter-day philosopher/predators. The key thing to keep in mind is that when most of t
Forum: "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements"

A few clarifications may be in order here. Take them for what they're worth. We really ought to make a distinction between the success of these methods as methods and the success of these methods as tools for revenue enhancement. As someone told me a long, long time ago, the way to get rich is not to buy a book about how to get rich. It is to write a book that purports to teach other peop
Forum: "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements"

This is Salerno here; I wrote the book, "SHAM," and I now administer the site SHAMblog (www.shamblog.com). I hope it's clear that the appearance on my blog of some of the folks mentioned in this thread by no means constitutes an endorsement of their diverse activities. SHAMblog is--I like to think--a forum of ideas, and its mandate is far broader that the fairly tight-focus topics
Forum: "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements"