--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Being a big fan of the book "When Prophecy Fails," I love
> days like today, when True Believers all over the world
> awaken to find not the Rapture they were hoping and
> praying for

So how many "days like today" have you experienced, and
when was the most recent before this one?

Also, just for the record, no believers awakened this
morning to find that the Rapture had not occurred. They
knew it before they went to bed last night.

(Editorial note: Writerly flourishes tend to be a lot
more effective when they don't contradict the known facts.
If they do, readers quickly realize you're writing for
yourself, not for them, and it lessens their investment
in whatever point you wanted to make.)

<snip>
> This should be a familiar pattern to everyone who has
> followed the ever-changing "magic numbers" necessary for
> TMSP butt-bouncers to bring about world peace. First it
> was one set of numbers, and they were achieved and damn!
> -- no world peace.

Actually, I don't believe the specified numbers were
ever achieved on the sustained basis necessary to usher
in world peace. The "Taste of Utopia" course in '83, for
example, which did hit the prescribed numbers, lasted
only three weeks.

> The solution was obvious. Not enough butt-bouncers, so the
> "magic number" was raised. And achieved.

Not achieved, actually.

> And still nothing happened, world-peace-wise.

Actually, quite a few very interesting things happened
world-peace-wise back when the numbers were high--the
fall of the Berlin Wall, for example. Could have been
just coincidence, of course, but a number of promising
events took place around the world during this period
that took analysts by surprise and for which they had
trouble finding an explanation.

The interesting thing is how hard non-TMers have worked
to attempt to debunk the various studies that have been
done on the positive effects of the big World Peace
Assemblies. One might almost wonder if *they* were the
ones wrestling with cognitive dissonance.


Reply via email to