Postings

[Kerry]

I would ask Sue, should people really keep having to go over what is and isn't Classical, especially when it is the same people trying repeatedly to discuss non Classical methods. There are many lists where people can discuss all manner of treatment methods, and I would consider it only courtesy to stick to the topic of the group. Why are people so keen to promote other methods on the list? To me it smacks of the attitude "We don't treat Classically and we are going to keep promoting the fact that we don't treat that way and that we think Classical Homeopathy is wrong, And we will keep going over non Classical methods, even if it means spoiling a good Classical Homeopathy list! If it makes for a bad atmosphere, what the hell!"

Students come to the lists to learn, and in the case of this list, the topic is Classical Homeopathy, and they are, on the whole, happy to be guided towards the knowledge that Hahnemann dedicated his life to. Sadly, there seems to be a lot of people out there who just wish to sabotage the list and make an unpleasant atmosphere where they will continually promote other methods. Please let us not forget that extremely good Classical Homeopaths lost patience for a reason: people wouldn't stick to the topic of the list. Stick to the topic of the list and there is no unpleasantness, just a great learning environment, the sort of environment that is now found in similar groups on facebook: the place that some of the great homeopaths have decamped to.

Kerry

[Leilanae]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, kerry wrote:

Hi Kerry,

Thanks! I have been Facebook resistant ........ maybe I'll reconsider?

[Kerry]

I was most definitely facebook resistant and I find it a pain to use: I much prefer the yahoo list format, but it is most definitely worth the effort as there is such great info available. I am especially finding Roger's CD group's working of cases a really useful exercise. I don't have the time to actively participate in all of them but reading others input is just as useful as working the cases myself.

Kerry

[Tanya Marquette]

I have not been very active lately, but have been in the background. The issue is how people communicate.
One of my strong perceptions has to do with the lack of respect and the judgemental and self-righteous attitudes
that some people take. Every time, without fail, when this level of discourse occurs, the conversation becomes
stressful, unpleasant and really goes nowheres.
One thing that should be obvious, is that if people stop responding, the conversation ends. I seriously doubt that
if there is no response to a post that person will keep writing to him/herself. Some of the responses that I have seen
recurring always seem to involve a male attacking a female. This is insulting and clearly not professional.
Anonymity on lests such as this always seems to provoke some people's sense of invincibility.
The issue of what is Classical will always come up for discussion and difference in interpretation. It is the nature of
ideas in general. But when you have people who will demand a fundamentalist interpretation and go to the mat
on their interpretation, then you lose people. I am not going to get into an argument about what is legitimate homeopathy
here; my concern is communication process and what will make a list work or not. Keeping the tone down, working
on respect, and knowing when to let a conversation die for the sake of the group's survival are guidelines to be
considered.
tanya
________________________________

[Sue Boyle]

That's it exactly. Civil and polite works and no one was promoting, just explaining or not understanding. JW was wonderful, patiently explaining points to people who maybe didn't get it.

Sue
________________________________

[John Harvey]

The people who have been, as you put it, Sue, "fried, beaten, and eaten" on this list have by and large had a long history of claiming that homoeopathic treatment may have as its basis a "knowledge" coming from presumption rather than from the scientific process of exploration that underpins the homoeopathy that Hahnemann defined: pathogenetic trials. To claim that meditations, interpolations, and other guesswork is a scientifically valid substitute for scientifically replicable pathogenetic studies is not to "explain" an alternative to homoeopathy at all but merely to wilfully misrepresent homoeopathy's meaning and fundamental processes. That's why Joy Lucas, for instance, so clearly lost patience and Chris Gillen lost willingness to waste more of her time on these frauds.

What is and what is not "classical" is always, as you say, up for grabs, as the term is fundamentally meaningless. But what is and what is not homoeopathy is fortunately clear, bounded as the term is by very simple, stark definition. The continual attempt to subvert that, for replacement by imaginings, ravings, or commercial convenience, will always offend those who cherish the trueness with which homoeopathy's actual meaning guides the sincere skilled homoeopathic practitioner, "classical" or otherwise.
Kind regards,

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the case of Chernobyl, radiation caused 985,000 deaths worldwide—including almost 170,000 in North America—between 1986 and 2004, according to a Russian study published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. Fallout contaminated about 100,000 square kilometres of land. And 25 years later, five to seven percent of government spending in Ukraine is still devoted to dealing with the disaster’s health, environmental, and other after-effects.
"The impacts of Fukushima are still in the earliest stages of being determined, especially since the nuclear plant is still spewing huge amounts of radiation. On Monday, TEPCO reported detecting record-high radiation levels at the plant—double the previous record set in early June. The new level—at least 10 sieverts (10,000 millisieverts) per hour—could cause death or incapacitation within a few seconds’ exposure.
"Japan’s prime minister, Naoto Kan, said in July that decommissioning the plant would take ‘several decades’.
—Alex Roslin, "Japan's Fukushima catastrophe brings big radiation spikes to B.C.", Straight.Com 4 Aug 2011, .

[RichardS]

I might also add John, that the new political correctness leading to the twisting of said ideals out of a naive idea of promoting "all homeopathy", is what this is really all about. There are those who see any derision within the homeopathic community as inherently negative and bad for homeopathy all together. While there are others who think poor, unsubstantiated, anthropomorphic, speculative, new aginess is what is bad for the community. In the world of purple crystal-opathy there is no tolerance for the basics of the scientific method or professional rigour.
I might suggest, again, that those who would include every fleeting idea under the sun as being Homeopathic, might simply read the mission statement of the group/list.

Peace and prosperity,
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

[John Harvey]

Hi, Rik --
Thank you, but I'm disappointed in you: you support use of derisive humour, and then you remarkably fail to give us any! I can't help but feel that you've let the side down.

There's just one trouble with relying on the statement of Minutus's aim: it's very vague, stating "The aim of MINUTUS discussion group is to share useful information on classical and Hahnemannian homeopathy".

It would be far clearer, I think, to state its aim in relation to homoeopathy pure and simple (and possibly to footnote that with a definition of homoeopathy for those readers (and we know that there are some) who have never yet opened the dictionary at the word!). Adding riders such as Hahnemannian and classical seems to me to add the unfortunate suggestion of overlooking that the very word homoeopathy already excludes reliance on crystal-gazing, dreaming, imaginary provings, and the rest of the paraphernalia that some find convenient substitutes for pathogenetic trials and case-taking. And this suggests a tolerance of smuggling these substitutes in as "non-Hahnemannian homoeopathy" or "non-classical homoeopathy" or even "advanced homoeopathy".

You and I and anyone else who has read Hahnemann or even opened a dictionary know what it is that homoeopathy excludes as well as what it includes; but the very use of terms such as "classical homoeopathy" and "Hahnemannian homoeopathy" inadvertently suggests a tolerance of non-homoeopathy as some other kind of homoeopathy.

Partly for this reason, it seems to me less helpful to refer to the purpose of the list than to refer to the meaning of homoeopathy in order to remain clear on what is and what isn't homoeopathic practice. It also seems to me that discussion of homoeopathy isn't harmed by discussion of related topics, including diet, allopathy, and even the misuses of homoeopathic medicines.

What clearly harms discussion of homoeopathy -- and raises rancour every time -- is misidentifying brands of allopathic practice as homoeopathic practice. It's an abuse that is provocative because often wilfully uninformed, but we invite misunderstanding when we tolerate it; and the abuse is unnecessary for the purposes of discussing the value or results of competing modes of treatment. Those intolerant of us fogies who insist that that word not be used here to describe homoeopathy's antithesis would do better to support the word's demarcation than to continually scuff the lines if they wish to receive a hearing of the newfound wonders of polypharmacy, dreaming, and all the rest. We can afford to discuss signs and wonders; we can't afford to mistake them for science.

Cheers --

John

[Richard Shannon]

Hello John,
I quite agree with you but I might add that we could ask Soroush to modify or extend the mission statement to specify that the group is "not" a forum for the discussion of pseudopathy outside of the context of defining what is wrong with it as a direct comparative to genuine Homeopathy. The mission statement could contain a brief list of things that have no place here to be promoted, such as, Cheery feel goodedness 30C, Meditative hopefulness 200C, New agey self righteousness 1M or Total Bastardizationness 50M. Or my favorite, Homeopathy is just Energy so I am forced by my cultural good intentions to accept any and all loose definitions of what Homeopathy could be, because I am reluctant to voice anything other than total acceptance of all people and their ways of practicing at all times MT.

What do you think Soroush, John?

All the best to you and yours,
Rik

[Gisela Ahrendt]

Hello Rik
LOL - I concur with you - and with that I will stop reading this crap. I have been practising Vet. Hom for 3 years and can't believe the stuff that I read here.
Please take me of the list - nouff.
Gisela Di Carlo,Vet Hom

________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: barefoothomeopath@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:52:21 -0700
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Postings
Hello John,
I quite agree with you but I might add that we could ask Soroush to modify or extend the mission statement to specify that the group is "not" a forum for the discussion of pseudopathy outside of the context of defining what is wrong with it as a direct comparative to genuine Homeopathy. The mission statement could contain a brief list of things that have no place here to be promoted, such as, Cheery feel goodedness 30C, Meditative hopefulness 200C, New agey self righteousness 1M or Total Bastardizationness 50M. Or my favorite, Homeopathy is just Energy so I am forced by my cultural good intentions to accept any and all loose definitions of what Homeopathy could be, because I am reluctant to voice anything other than total acceptance of all people and their ways of practicing at all times MT.

What do you think Soroush, John?

All the best to you and yours,
Rik