Now and then, the spirit of fair play compels me to present an intelligent, well-argued rebuttal from the other side. And after all, for more than two years I've been inviting dedicated SHAMsters to provide me with their thoughts on why they remain faithful to self-help regimens that seem improbable at best, asinine at worst. For such reasons, I hereby give you the following, which arrived in the inbox associated with my professional web site (journalismpro) earlier this week.* It speaks for itself:
"Steve, your a jerk!! I've been following the law of attraction, & I'm here to tell you it does work, so poop to you, big mouth. The way you spew negativity around is why the world is in such a disaster!!! Try being positive for a change, & maybe life will get better for ya!!! Same goes for your faithful negative audience. What crap energy is sent out, will draw like-minded people back at ya. That's why you all get along so good. I think your so unhappy with your life, you can't help knocking others down. Jealousy of others good fortune seems to really piss you off, why I wonder?? The ones who buy their products, is because they want to advance in this world, in harmony, & better themselves, instead of wasting precious time & energy like your group does. Get a life you people, & stop worrying about what others do, & try to think for yourselves. Look in the mirror, & see what makes you think you're so much better than others. Get a grip will ya!!!!!"As Olson Johnson says to the congregation after Gabby has just given his thundering gibberish pep talk in that classic scene from Blazing Saddles: Now who can argue with that!
P.S. If the law of attraction does indeed work, this person is in serious trouble.
* I will not reveal the identity of the person or his/her email address, but I did forward the email to a number of SHAMblog regulars, to document its authenticity. Now, I suppose this could be a put-on—a "work of satire"—but the writer never breaks character, so I'm inclined to think it's legit. Or as legit as this sort of logic can be, anyway.