provings

[Joy Lucas]

Why on earth would I want a private reply, what would be the need for that?

They were perfectly good questions to statements you'd made which I didn't understand. But namely I am truly curious about why ANYONE doesn't feel that what Hahnemann left us (regardless of how he worked, what he would have gone on to do, didn't do or whatever) doesn't suffice. What he gave us was/is nigh on perfection, i.e. it works. I can only imagine that there are just a few reasons why anyone would want to tweak it beyond recognition - 1, they truly do not understand it; 2, they are too lazy to learn properly but their ego dictates that they need to change it to suit themselves, i.e. 'my version of homeopathy is better than yours'; 3, they don't actually practice Homeopathy but feel the need to 'belong'; 4, they think it is a load of junk.

Even if you just sit and think about it for even just a minute and ask yourself why you are not happy with Hahnemannian homeopathy, I would be interested in the reasons because the muddied waters (as they appear to be for some) will never be clear with all the diffusion that is profligated.

Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Sue Boyle]

Here, here !! Thank you Vera
Sue

[Joy Lucas]

And with respect Jill1313, if you want to call me sardonic then you should choose do this privately as 1, we are here to discuss Homeopathy not personal condemnation and 2, unfortunately the tone has now been set as, depending on what libel laws you subscribe to if any, you could be in deep trouble for saying things like this.

We are here to discuss Hahnemannian homeopathy - that is all this whole discussion has been about, namely the misdemeanours of 'other' versions of homeopathy and one has to expect the likely challenges that would ensue with such a discussion.

It is the way of the world, one that you live in also.

You might want to post about your research though, far more interesting I am sure.

Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "jill1313" wrote:

[Tanya Marquette]

jill
it would be great if you included something positive about
homeopathy in your article. homeopathy is so little known
and understood by the public in general, even those who
use holistic healing modalities. it is being so brutally
and mischaracterized and attacked in the media that getting
some good, solid and positive info out there would be wonderful
thanks
tanya

[John Harvey]

Shannon,
If you think that fantasy is no basis for prescribing medicines, I won't criticise your conclusion, because it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. When real homoeopaths criticise the misrepresentation of homoeopathy as being based on fantasies such as Sankaran's, Scholten's, and Irene's, it is not on the basis of anything wrong with their practices. It is on the basis that it is misrepresentation of homoeopathy.
Please read that slowly and tell me if you don't get it. It's pretty basic to this conversation.
This has been said, now, dozens of times. You, Irene, Liz, and jill1313 seem still not to get it. Misuse of the terms homoeopathy (as a practice), homoeopathic practice, homoeopathic prescribing, and homoeopathic method as being based on anything in lieu of the match, via symptom analysis, of pathogenesis to case taken (and no, not a sore throat, an entire case) is criticised here, and rightly so, on the basis of attempting to pass those methods off as homoeopathy.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/2 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[John Harvey]

Dear Jill/Jen,

Thanks for your respectful criticism of my tone. You're right: my questioning has been philosophical rather than practical. If it is not yet obvious to you why that should be in this particular discussion (since you ask me the point of my "vicious attacks" on Irene), let me invite you to read my post of a few minutes ago under "The argument from particulars", which states as clearly as I know how to, in words even Shannon shouldn't object to, the problem with the "practical" alternatives that Irene promotes as homoeopathy. (Hint: the problem isn't in the practice!)

If, after reading that, you still don't know why I should adopt so sardonic a tone in relation to particular self-professed homoeopathy "experts", please do ask again; I'd appreciate it.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/2 jill1313 >

[Shannon Nelson]

I've no further comment about it.
Best wishes,
Shannon

[John Harvey]

Shannon, in light of your continuing call for these representations of other practices than those based on matching pathogenesis to patient to continue and to be promoted on this list, if you have no further comment on the fact that the topic is the question of misrepresentation, then I take it that you withdraw the suggestion, and I very much respect that decision and thank you for it on behalf of all who love homoeopathy.
If I'm mistaken about that and you do wish to continue urging that other practices be called homoeopathy, please let me urge you to read my earlier "argument from particulars" post, concerning the origin of the prescription basis that we conveniently call the law of similars and why it cannot be replaced as the basis for homoeopathy, and to respond to it.
Many thanks.
John
2009/7/2 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi John,

Yes, I understand what you've said in that post, thanks for clarifying.
Please, tho, I'd prefer for now to have my name left out of discussions
(unless you are talking to me, or quoting me directly). I know Irene
feels the same.

There are numerous points we disagree about.
That's okay; the world is *full* of people who disagree about various
things, and yet they do, and must, learn to live together, work
together, even talk together, peaceably. Honestly there are some
topics that we won't and can't come to agreement on, and banging our
heads against it, determined to get agreement, is not going to be a
winning approach. We've each made our points, and can digest those (or
not) as time goes on. Better to return to topics where there is more
chance of fruitfulness.

Thanks,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

On Jul 1, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Harvey wrote:
What? When did I say that?
Um, John, I do get to decide when I take part, and what I talk about.
I am choosing to withdraw from most of these topics. Thanks for
understanding.
But yes, since obviously a "return to peace" necessitates talking about
nothing that you or Joy find controversial, together with the fact that
Soroush has reiterated the focus of the list as "Hahnemannian", I see
nothing to be gained by pursuing those other topics. We've got other
places for that. I do regret the loss of the freedoms we've had on
this list; it's a terrific group of people, and I have always
appreciated the knowledge base of *both* the more strict and the less
strict on the list. But, so it goes.

Nope, not the slightest interest, at least not here and now.
No thanks. Maybe another time.

Shannon