> Dear Sir,
sources
Dear Barbara, and others,
I would say it's an illusion, to think that it is possible to 'define'
classical homeopathy.
As it is not possible to 'define' justice' or 'beauty' or 'impressionism' or
'jazz' etc....
And even if you could define it,... it wouldn't solve anything because then
the discussion will shift to the question whether a given phenomena has to
be considered falling 1) 'under the definition', 2) 'totally outside' the
definition or, mostly, 3) 'partly in- and partly' outside the
definition....and then you are not a step further then you were in the first
place.
And in fact, one doesn't need a definition to know that when Isali talks
about acupuncture points or Chinese herbs that this has nothing to do with
classic homeopathy.
And I guess, most of us don't mind when now and then, someone is a little
bit or a big bit out of topic.
You hit the delete button and that's it.
But, when it happens so frequent that the danger exists that at a given
moment it's not clear anymore what the real 'core' of the group is, or even
worse, more and more new group members forget all about this 'core' and
start dropping any kind of health post into the group, then two things might
happen: this practise is accepted as it happens but then the original
members will one by one leave the list and look for an new adequate list,
which fulfil their original expectations, or the original members will start
defending their 'territory'. And that's in fact what's happening at the
moment. It's more or less a territorial fight. And I think there is nothing
wrong with that.
Think of a Latin dance group.
They do salsa and meringue all the time.
And all of a sudden there is a new group member who likes to dance some
reggae.
And some of the members think it's a good idea, but there are lots others
who demand that the group would stick to their core.
Who is wrong and who is right?
Hard to say. If they start doing reggae (and other dances, why not?) they
will learn (and enjoy) a lot of other things they didn't knew before, but
their skills on salsa and meringue will diminish, that's for sure. And if
you want to become a top salsa player, you 'd better stay on the Salsa
topic, that's sure too.
So as far as topic-matters are concerned, what (unwritten) rules exists in
this kind of lists/groups etc...?
I would say there are to important rules:
1) If you post on topic, and you are respectful, you can write almost
anything and ask anything you want.
The worst thing what can happen is that nobody reads your mail. (As maybe
with this mail
No big deal.
2) You want to post something which is (partly) off topic.
Then you have to ask yourself: is it what I have to tell or to ask really of
interest to this group, which is dedicated to classic homeopathy.
If your conclusion is yes, then it becomes a question of courtesy. Because
in that case, when sending in your mail, you give a kind of notification
about the fact that you know that what you are going to tell or ask is in
fact (a little) off topic, but because it's so important for you or for the
group you more or less ask permission to post it anyway, hoping etc.....
Although such a procedure sounds a little 'over the top', it is important,
because it confirms the group values and is not an (indirect) contestation
of them. Failing to do so, will without any doubt generate in a short term
defence reactions of the original group members.
In this sense Isali (and others) have more then once broken this unwritten
rule.
But there is also an 'other side' to this coin.
And that is that when group members are repeatedly off topic, they are
normally 'brought back on track' in a gentle, polite and subtle way.
And that's were Dave Hartley 'went off the road'. Dave has to realize that
also without calling names, one can hurt and offend people *very* deep.
It's not the problem what Dave said, most of us would agree to that, but the
way he did it.
When one accuses somebody on this list to practise guess-o-pathy instead of
homeopathy and advises to reread the Organon, it's nothing less then a big
affront which leaves the other party (Ego) no other choice then to try to
'get even'. An eye for an eye.
So if all the people on this list would learn two lesson's out of this
conflict:
1) If you want to go off topic: kind of ask permission for it, give a little
explanation, confirming in that way you know what the group topic is.
2) If you feel the need to disagree on what people post, ask, share.... do
it in such a way that you would like yourself to be 'instructed'.
then maybe this conflict was useful after all.
Only some thoughts,
Jan
So when Dave poi some list members that their post is off topic, Dave is
defending the original group territories and he has all the right to do so.