Peter Popoff made me a criminal

Dr. Keith

Not a doctor.
Dr. Keith
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
26,034
Location
Texas
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for such confessions, but religion seems central to this somehow. I wouldn't fight a move, is what I'm saying.

We get mail for the people who used to live in our home. No problem, for a while we sent it on to them then marked stuff "return to sender" but now it is mainly just junk mail so we throw it out. It's been over ten years, I'm not even sure where they live anymore. Recently, we started getting mail for someone I've never heard of. I've tried looking her up, but can't find anything useful because the name is common and none of the addresses are similar to ours. Again, it is mostly junk so I just toss it out. I think we got a few medical bills that I marked "return to sender" but that was about a year ago and nothing like that since. In short, I try to get people their mail if it lands at my place, but I'm not perfect.

Today I got a piece of mail addresses to the new person from Peter Popoff and my curiosity overcame my sense of right and wrong. Upon reading the mail I realized that the devil made me do it. And I'm fairly certain Peter Popoff is the devil.

Obviously I'd heard of him before but this letter is just stock full of so much ******** that I can't really even stomach it. It is a sales pitch that can be condensed to: God told me that you personally need to send me a $200 sacrifice so that you can receive hundreds of dollars a month extra. There is no attempt to explain why sending the money to Popoff is better than just digging a hole in the backyard to "sow the seed (money)". There is no attempt to explain where the extra money will come from. Those things don't matter.

The best part is that near the beginning of one of the letters (yes, there were two, the second in a separate sealed envelope with warnings) there is a very detailed discussion of money that starts with "I won't mention money again in this letter, but . . ." I think I counted six more uses of the word money after that section, but my brain hurt so I can't really go back and check.

The brilliance of the letter is that he doesn't actually promise anything. Seriously, I have to assume it was vetted by a pretty good lawyer who made sure that no explicit promises were made. Even the promise of prayer was promised to be made in the "spirit language" so I doubt you could pin him down for not actually praying as promised. Snorting coke off the chests of hookers is likely a form of prayer in the "spirit language".

Anyway, I expect Federal Agents to break down my door any minute and try to search my iPhone (tricks on them, it's so old they likely have fired the folks who could break into it). I thought I'd let you know why.
 
Somehow there are certain concepts that people repeatedly buy into automatically, whereas even a moment of logical thought would send them running. Not surprisingly con men know of and use these psychological quirks a lot. The "seed money" concept is and has been a very popular one. A very common racket, at least in the recent past, was the con man coming up to the "mark" and claiming to have discovered some money in the street. For some reason the con man offered to share it with the mark, but only if the mark provided some of their own money as "good faith" while the con man went to the bank to split the found money. Of course the con man ends up with all the money. But why, if one thinks of it, is there any need for "good faith" money at all? Similarly, con men would sell people machines that "print real currency" because the con man "needed some quick cash." ???

There must be some subroutine still in our brains that somehow worked in neolithic society (hunting wooly mammoths?) but in current day society convinces us in a bizarre way that these things make some sort of logical sense and that we should thereby give away our cash.
 
Last edited:
Rincewind said:
I think it was first noted as a graffito on a billboard proclaiming something like "The Army made me a man!"

Memory a bit dim these days... :o
Click to expand...

In "Rocky Horror" one of the songs talks of making a man, as in Frankenstein.
 
Many years ago I was trying to drown the sorrow of a failed romance and found myself in front of the television at 2 am drunk, stoned and covered in tiny particles of food. At this moment, calling Pompoff and asking for a free gift seemed like a funny thing to do at the time.

Soon after I got a piece of paper with an outline of a hand, I was supposed to put my hand on the paper and pray or something, made me laugh. Not long after, I got a small package of "anointing oil" which I was supposed to put on my forehead, pray etc. The funniest thing I got was a *********** glove, a plastic *********** glove that wouldn't even have lasted 30 seconds washing the dishes. I didn't even read that letter! Hilarious.

I continued to receive mail for years later despite sending nothing, do not recommend.
 
Fishers of (gullible) men.

Cast a big enough net and you're bound to catch something.
 
Giordano said:
There must be some subroutine still in our brains that somehow worked in neolithic society (hunting wooly mammoths?) but in current day society convinces us in a bizarre way that these things make some sort of logical sense and that we should thereby give away our cash.
Click to expand...

I guess that is what I don't get. How do we raise people that fall for **** like this? How do we create such massive blind spots for con-men to hide in? I think part of it is the prevalence of religion and banking off of the belief in miracles that goes hand in hand with most common religions, but there seems to be something more.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for such confessions, but religion seems central to this somehow. I wouldn't fight a move, is what I'm saying.

We get mail for the people who used to live in our home. No problem, for a while we sent it on to them then marked stuff "return to sender" but now it is mainly just junk mail so we throw it out. It's been over ten years, I'm not even sure where they live anymore. Recently, we started getting mail for someone I've never heard of. I've tried looking her up, but can't find anything useful because the name is common and none of the addresses are similar to ours. Again, it is mostly junk so I just toss it out. I think we got a few medical bills that I marked "return to sender" but that was about a year ago and nothing like that since. In short, I try to get people their mail if it lands at my place, but I'm not perfect.

Today I got a piece of mail addresses to the new person from Peter Popoff and my curiosity overcame my sense of right and wrong. Upon reading the mail I realized that the devil made me do it. And I'm fairly certain Peter Popoff is the devil.

Obviously I'd heard of him before but this letter is just stock full of so much ******** that I can't really even stomach it. It is a sales pitch that can be condensed to: God told me that you personally need to send me a $200 sacrifice so that you can receive hundreds of dollars a month extra. There is no attempt to explain why sending the money to Popoff is better than just digging a hole in the backyard to "sow the seed (money)". There is no attempt to explain where the extra money will come from. Those things don't matter.

The best part is that near the beginning of one of the letters (yes, there were two, the second in a separate sealed envelope with warnings) there is a very detailed discussion of money that starts with "I won't mention money again in this letter, but . . ." I think I counted six more uses of the word money after that section, but my brain hurt so I can't really go back and check.

The brilliance of the letter is that he doesn't actually promise anything. Seriously, I have to assume it was vetted by a pretty good lawyer who made sure that no explicit promises were made. Even the promise of prayer was promised to be made in the "spirit language" so I doubt you could pin him down for not actually praying as promised. Snorting coke off the chests of hookers is likely a form of prayer in the "spirit language".

Anyway, I expect Federal Agents to break down my door any minute and try to search my iPhone (tricks on them, it's so old they likely have fired the folks who could break into it). I thought I'd let you know why.
Click to expand...

You clearly need to quickly join John Oliver's Church of Eternal Exemption!!! They can assuredly make all your troubles go away!!!!!!
 
Popoff (aka the Pillsburied Doughboy) is a piker....or an ******* - I always forget which!!
 
I am astounded that I knew next to nothing about the tenants of skepticism after graduating from high school. All they would have had to do was teach the history of science, why people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe, and how it was proven it was not for example. Cognitive bias. All of this was known, I learned basically nothing about it. Oh I learned about stereotypes in social studies... nothing about why humans are naturally biased in this way. If they simply stuck to showing how science works, this would go a long way. This is by design, it's illiberal to question the very intuitions of people. This is my opinion YMMV.
 
Joey McGee said:
I am astounded that I knew next to nothing about the tenants of skepticism after graduating from high school. All they would have had to do was teach the history of science, why people thought that the earth was at the center of the universe, and how it was proven it was not for example. Cognitive bias. All of this was known, I learned basically nothing about it. Oh I learned about stereotypes in social studies... nothing about why humans are naturally biased in this way. If they simply stuck to showing how science works, this would go a long way. This is by design, it's illiberal to question the very intuitions of people. This is my opinion YMMV.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely.

On the highlighted word, which definition are you using:
il·lib·er·al
i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.
"illiberal and anti-democratic policies"
synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary; More
antonyms: tolerant, progressive
2. (rare)uncultured or unrefined.
Click to expand...

Because I find that very conservative institutions don't like to teach skepticism. Although I would agree that it is considered unrefined.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I agree with you completely.

On the highlighted word, which definition are you using:


Because I find that very conservative institutions don't like to teach skepticism. Although I would agree that it is considered unrefined.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point, the only way to make sense of my usage is to know that I meant it sarcastically. I am a liberal democrat by every acceptable use of the term. What I mean is the "pendulum too far" crowd who, for example, would be concerned about teaching too much about evolution in school. For example, natural selection literally means that we have zero evidence of an intelligent designer in nature. Most of us would object to teaching children in public schools that there is no God. However. Just like teaching the movements of the heavenly bodies, we CAN show that no extra force is necessary. Of course, here I must reference the famous Pierre-Simon Laplace in conversation with Napoleon
'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")
Click to expand...

Here is a statement from the education government in Ontario, Canada, quoted in a blog by the great Jerry Coyne (oft-quoted as perhaps the most knowledgeable evolutionist in the world)

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...re-teaching-evolution-except-human-evolution/

The Statement on Equity and Inclusive Education describes the importance of staff and students demonstrating respect for diversity in school and the wider society. It is expected that teachers will plan units of study, develop a variety of teaching approaches, and select appropriate resources to address the curriculum expectations, taking into account the needs and abilities of the students in their classes. As well, learning activities should be designed to reflect diverse points of views and experiences.
Click to expand...

Well... what the ****?

So, we are striking a "balance". But this balance we must strike is costing us in certain respects. I suggest a great way around this quandary. Teach the history of science and how we debunked certain views. At the very least the student will be privy to the arguments.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
This is a very good point, the only way to make sense of my usage is to know that I meant it sarcastically.
Click to expand...

That is may be the best fit, and one I should have considered more. Thanks for the clarification.

So, we are striking a "balance". But this balance we must strike is costing us in certain respects. I suggest a great way around this quandary. Teach the history of science and how we debunked certain views. At the very least the student will be privy to the arguments.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When my wife taught science she had a lot of fun teaching it from that point of view. She likes stories and everyone will remember a good story more than a set of rules that resulted from the story.
 
Last edited:
Rincewind said:
Slight derail: I'm reminded of an old joke here - "If I give him the wool, would he make one for me too?"
Click to expand...

tsig said:
said the wolf?
Click to expand...

Rincewind said:
I think it was first noted as a graffito on a billboard proclaiming something like "The Army made me a man!"

Memory a bit dim these days... :o
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
In "Rocky Horror" one of the songs talks of making a man, as in Frankenstein.
Click to expand...

fuelair said:
Peter Popoff made me a criminal !!

Can he make me one too?????
Click to expand...

I just wanted to acknowledge this line of response and bow at your collective sense of humor. It was certainly appreciated!
 
Giordano said:
Somehow there are certain concepts that people repeatedly buy into automatically, whereas even a moment of logical thought would send them running. Not surprisingly con men know of and use these psychological quirks a lot. The "seed money" concept is and has been a very popular one. A very common racket, at least in the recent past, was the con man coming up to the "mark" and claiming to have discovered some money in the street. For some reason the con man offered to share it with the mark, but only if the mark provided some of their own money as "good faith" while the con man went to the bank to split the found money. Of course the con man ends up with all the money. But why, if one thinks of it, is there any need for "good faith" money at all? Similarly, con men would sell people machines that "print real currency" because the con man "needed some quick cash." ???.
Click to expand...
This scheme works best with 3 players; the mark and 2 con men, but the mark thinks one of the con men is on his side and the two cons don't know each other.

This is well played in an excellent movie that shows several other cons, the [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061678/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1]Flim-Flan Man[/url], with George C. Scott and Michael Sarazin (the cons) and Slim Pickens (the mark). Slim, his pockets full of tobacco-crop profits and a belly full of beer, spots a wallet on the sidewalk at the same time as Michael Sarazin. As they haggle over who saw it first, Scott comes up, playing a slightly foreign-sounding professor, and suggests they move somewhere less conspicuous before the wallet owner comes back.

Around the corner, Scott examines the wallet and finds some cash and a large check. They all agree to split the cash, but Sarazin says "That's a lot of money in the check. I wish we could cash it, but I'm too well known in this town to chance it." Scott, a relative stranger in town, volunteers to take it to the bank, but says, "Now see here, if I'm going to take a chance, I need to see something from you two as a good-faith deposit. You each have five hundred on you, don't you?" Sarazin readily agrees, and begins counting out money ($100 on top, one dollar bills underneath). Eventually Pickens sees he's going to be left out of the windfall, so he coughs up $500 in real bills.

As all the cash is being put in an envelope for temporary safekeeping, the real bills are swapped with cut newspaper while Pickens is distracted. Pickens is given the fat envelope to hold while the Professor goes to the bank, and both sit down to wait for his return and keep an eye on each other.

After some time passes, Sarazin says he is going to look for the Professor. As soon as he is out of sight, Pickens takes off, thinking he has all the money, but all he really has is a pocket full of shredded newspaper.

This, and variations on it, is called a "Pigeon Drop."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom