On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:00 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 7:09 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > > And all because you felt the need to trash Vaj.
> >
> > Actually not. Rather, because Vaj felt the need
> > to respond to my reminder of his earlier lie by
> > lying some more, again and again, compulsively,
> > about his faux-Google search, until he finally
> > got so strung out he became incoherent.
>
> I pointed out the precise nature of Gratzon's book as it directly
> relates to 'do nothing, achieve everything', how he conceals the
> principle with a catchy title
<horselaugh>
Right, Vaj. The title is "The Lazy Way to Success:
How to Do Nothing and Accomplish Everything." That
sure is a great way to conceal the principle, by
putting it in the title of the book.
> and how it links to literally hundreds of web sites.
But none of that has ever been in dispute, of course.
Here's the lie Vaj told:
"if you do a web search for 'Do nothing and accomplish
everything' the phrase is usually tied to get rich
quick schemes."
In fact, virtually every Google hit on the phrase
is tied to Gratzon's book, which is not, of course,
a "get rich quick scheme."
Well, since you failed to define a "get rich quick scheme" I find
your lame response unconvincing.
So let's look at Judy's assertion that Gratzon's book is not part of
the genre of "get rich quick scheme" books and whether or not it aims
a quicker approach to starting a business compared to the more
traditional approaches.
Whether or not it is part of the genre of get rich quick books is a
matter or both opinion and consensus. IMO it is part of the genre of
new age, get rich easy or quick. I would also hypothesize that the
majority of readers on this list who are objective, i.e. non-TB's,
would also hold a similar opinion.
What are the traditional paths to starting a business and how long do
they take?
One way is to 'learn the ropes' of an existing business and then
break out on your own and start your own business. This typically
takes years, at least several and often long periods of time (many
years).
The academic approach is to get bachelors or MBA along with some
internship experience before striking out on your own. One may also
decide to gain some experience in the work sphere before breaking out
on their own. This would take a minimum of 4 years of college plus
any experience and as long as 6 years plus any experience desired.
So we have a range of a several years up to 6 or more years before
starting ones business in more traditional approaches.
How long comparatively would it take a reader of Gratzon's work to
get into business?
Much, much less.
Assuming one wants to read the book several times to get the ideas
down, let's say a month or two to digest the ideas.
The 'attuning oneself to the lazy approach', to natural law, would
take (if TM research is to be believed) only about three months
maximum--the typical amount of time for TM "benefits" to level off.
In other words it's much less time, very quick in comparison, this
path to "success" and alleged riches. Let's say six months or less.
How much shorter though? Is it really "quick" comparatively?
Yes, it is.
Let's take a gander at the numbers!
If one started a business after getting detailed academic training by
pursuing a MBA that would take typically 6 years. Even if we assume
it would take the natural law/lazy approach double the amount of
time, 6 months, the Gratzon approach is:
72 months vs. 6 months or 12 times faster!
Even if we have someone just doing a bachelors and a years work
experience, comparatively, Gratzon's lazy method is 10 times as fast!
Clearly, just looking at standard business training vs. the lazy-
natural law method, the Gratzon method is a "get rich quick scheme":
a scheme to make profitability and success in a comparatively much,
much shorter time: 10 to 12 times faster.
And the book also, IMO, is part of the genre of get rich quick new
age schemes. I base this on direct experience of similar schemes
ventured by TMers (who were often TBs).
