EXCHANGES - FINAL WARNING

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Soroush,
Discussion of other approaches have been attacked o this list or waved
away because on the grounds that they are not suitable to minutus
because they are ot "classical Hahnemanaian" - without giving the
supporters a chance of trying to show that they are ot "against"
Hahemannian teachings but instead may be an evolution of them.

The most recent example has been Irene - and your most recedt post is
an example of this.

Even without citig the Heilkunst method, I can give as examples
that come to mind without further trying to remember: Sehgal's and
Banerji's.

I have not the slightest doubt that Ardavan's would be among them if
it were ot Ardavan's;-)

So, thank you for your suggestion that I introduce topics I may
consider to be evolutions - but NO thank you.

I would love a discussion on Ardavan's methhod, though:-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[John Harvey]

Hi, Luise --
Of course, in some cases, what has occurred is that assertions that homoeopathy should not unnecessarily be confused with adjuvants (e.g. exercise, nutrition) and alternatives (e.g. Sankaran, Scholten, polypharmacy) to it have been interpreted as assertions that they should not even be discussed here.
I don't recall seeing any censure of such discussion. My own contention has been that such practices, regardless of their worth, should be clearly differentiated from homoeopathy rather than be used to further the confusion that the S&S schools and polypharmacists have instituted through misappropriation of the word "homoeopathy" for practices that are actually at odds with the single principle that the word represents.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/6 Luise Kunkle >

[Shannon Nelson]

Yes, my understanding was that Joy in particular has been repeatedly
saying exactly that, that in her opinion only discussions on
Hahnemannian method were to be permitted here--and that anyone
discussing non-Hahnemannian (by her understanding) topics was not fit
to waste any politeness or civility on. That definitely all came
across as censure!

However, now that the list guidelines have been *further* clarified,
we'll see.

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

Well I'll use one of your well written phrases "I never said that, I never implied that." You are being paranoid again and I did say that.

This is a Hahnemannian list that is in itself censure - censure is assessment but it is clear to see you mean it to imply other nasties as usual.

joy

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

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
You have ot been o the list as long as I have, I presume. I between I
was off intermittently - but I have been on again and again ever since
it was started - and before I was on Lyghtforce (also with pauses
in between) together with a great percetage of the people
posting on minutus now.

But even in the latest controversial discussion there was the argument
several times that the opinions posted by Irene, Shannon, myself were
not fit to be on minutus.

Why else would we have discussed moving to a different list? (Our with
for a civilised manner of discussion was just one of the reasons).
Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[John Harvey]

Hi, Luise --
As far as I can see, the list has not for a long time confined itself in any respect to Hahnemannian homoeopathy, but a majority of its members do seem to care that homoeopathy not be misrepresented as including magical thinking such as Sankarinism, speculative practices such as Scholtenism, or other clear violations such as polypharmacy or prescription without a basis in a knowledge of pathogeneses.
So perhaps some of the expression of distaste for such discussion really reflects less an unwillingness to discuss other practices than an unwillingness
(a) to see the terms in which homoeopathy is discussed so demeaned as to render helpful discussion of homoeopathy next to impossible in the quagmire of confusions that normally swallows it on this list, and
(b) to see other practices pose as homoeopathy.
It may be that discussion of other practices would invoke nobody's wrath if it did not pretend to be discussing a form of homoeopathy. I may well be the person on the list who is most intolerant of abuse of the word homoeopathy -- and even I would welcome discussion of other practices.
Perhaps we could use that as a working hypothesis, anyway. I know that you're willing to use terms to denote what they actually mean, and if those others who are keen to discuss other practices are willing to follow suit, perhaps there won't be the same objections to the discussion. In addition, clearing up the endless confusions can obviously only further the possibility of being understood. So everybody wins.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/6 Luise Kunkle >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)