More on Squirmer...er...Schirmer
Things are not going well for David Schirmer, the lone Aussie star of the hit New-Wage infomercial The Secret.
Just a little over a month ago, he posted this gleeful message on The Secret discussion forum:
Re: What made you smile today? When a well meaning, high profile psychologist on a radio interview said today that the Secert [sic] is dangerous and doesn't work ... and what professional qualifactions [sic] do I have to back up my claims! I calmly replied that I have a degree in results ... and the "By your fruits you are known!" I had to smile as I looked out from my window of my office at home across the estate to the city, as he [the psychologist] was stuck in traffic driving his basic car home from the job he goes to every day!!!!What a difference a month makes. Very shortly after that message was posted, the Australian tabloid news show A Current Affair (ACA) aired the first of several segments on Schirmer and the allegations that he bilked numerous investors. I've commented on this matter several times on this blog.
Posted by David Schirmer 05/24/07 07:18 AM
And now ACA has done it again. Here's a link to a follow-up on Schirmer that was aired Monday evening (Aussie time). As always, Firefox users and most Mac users may have trouble following this link. But if you're using Internet Explorer, go for it!
Here's the YouTube link.
In this segment we see Schirmer apparently breaking a promise he'd previously made to ACA reporter Ben Fordham. Schirmer had originally invited Fordham to be a VIP attendee at a get-rich-quick seminar in Melbourne that Schirmer was putting on with fellow Secret star Bob Proctor (who now looks as if he rues the day he ever teamed up with Schirmer). Schirmer promised Fordham, on-camera, that he could bring cameras and everything to the seminar. I guess he changed his mind. Not only was Fordham turned away from the seminar by security guards, but when he caught up with Schirmer in a restaurant and tried to get an interview, Schirmer apparently attempted to destroy the videotape.
The other side?
Recently I received an email from a person who, though not a close friend of Schirmer, says that Schirmer helped some of this person's family members. This is the same individual who previously had asked me to remove the PhotoShopped images of Schirmer from my blog (I blogged about that, of course). I did not remove the images but, in the interests of fairness – at least as "fair" as I get on this admittedly biased forum – I thought that it would be a good idea for me to print "another side" of the story. So I sought and was given permission to share this email.
Dear Ms SchmidtI appreciate your acknowledgment on your website of my earlier correspondence with you regarding the images of David Schirmer on your above website. My email was not a "heartfelt plea" but a respectful request - it was worth a go, as any Aussie will tell you. I noted on your website that you chose to ask others for their views, obviously of more value to you than anything I could say to you, and that has to be ok, though I found some of their language objectionable, but that unfortunately is the way of the world these days, and they do not know me, and it is their democratic right, and I will defend that. You are right that young children should not be accessing blogs such as yours, and they probably haven't, truth be known. The concern for human damage is genuine but that is certainly hard to communicate in print and it is hard to change any views that are already ingrained.I must say I was surprised with one of your friend's views "I am appalled at the tactic that this fellow took. His plea to remove the images "FOR THE CHILDREN" is ghastly, abhorrent". As I said, there was no "plea" just a request. I'm not sure what the "blame shifting" is all about and neither am I claiming that you caused the children's distress. If David Schirmer is a "liar and crook" - let it be proved by the correct channels, not by the remote public at large and manipulative media. I'm not sure what my "tactic" was supposed to be. I have nothing but sadness at how quickly someone can be demolished.The one thing I appreciate about your comments is that, should the story not prove to be correct, then you will print retractions and apologies. Thank you.I also hope the people who complained get their money back, if indeed they are owed money. I will keep an open mind on this one and not point fingers such as has been done until I know the truth. I am not a close friend, but the Schirmers have given close members of my family opportunities they otherwise would not have had and that in itself deserves my loyalty, and no money involved, just a new lease of life! I come at this from a different angle than you or your friends do.Thank you for your time. Even "alleged scammers" do good things.
In no way is this intended to dismiss the complaints of the people who claim to have been victims of Schirmer's broken promises. I have heard from some of them privately, and it seems to me that for them, there are no "shades of gray." But I did want to let y'all know that I have been hearing from a Schirmer defender who, even though I've been pretty mean and catty on this blog, has remained civil. If only everyone on the Internet could maintain this level of civility...
In any case, I sincerely hope that this all works out well for everyone. Right now, however, it's not looking too good for David Schirmer.