Hi Magda,
I guess we're in agreement as to the main focus of the list! It sounds as
tho some of us view "main focus" in a somewhat looser way than you do, and I
don't think there's any problem with that. There is a difference between
your list and this one -- yours is *yours*, and you have chosen to moderate
it closely and hew tightly to the subject matter. Great! This list is
Ardavan's, and he has chosen *not* to moderate it tightly, and that does
sometimes cause problems...
Personally I (and many others) have no objection to sticking (rather) tighly
to the topic. So far as I'm remembering of what's been talked about lately,
I am probably unenthusiastic about roughly the same posts that you are.
But what to do? It's an open list, with a wide variety of folks. What do
you suggest should be done differently?
on 8/26/04 9:15 AM, Magda Aguila at
aquiline@myexcel.com wrote:
[snipped a bit]
Again, this is your choice and your right as the owner/moderator. But on
this list the situation is a bit different.
Yes, that's our preferred method here too.
Then we need to speak up -- in a constructive way.
...
That was the "prologue", but it was *NOT* what the flap was about. IMO the
discussion on internet treatment was a useful one...
Ah yes, when he replied further with the one that started:
Ah, don't you love it when someone says, "Nothing personal" and proceeds to
attack your person?
Yeah, she overreacted bigtime, and it didn't help her case any, but that's
not the point, IMO. Should she have been taken off the list? Maybe, but
I'd have thought it preferrable to just deal with the issues that her posts
brought up -- as happened, e.g., with the very good discussion re internet
prescribing.
I 100% agree. I wish I could say she's the only person who's ever carried
on so unprofessionally on the list, but (sigh) it would be a lie. Tho I
*would* have to say it's the most colorful language I recall seeing here!
But was she dealt with properly? I think not. I've been hoping we could
learn something from the episode and decide on appropriate responses for the
future, but maybe that's asking too much.
Yes, thankyou Dave! (There have been times in the past when he *did*
respond in that way, so I am not hopeful and happy that we Earthlings do
after all have the capacity to change and learn and grow (big smile). I did
not like what he was doing to Alva, but I *do* acknowledge that prior to
this his recent posts have been well-thought-out, professional, appropriate
and welcome. (This sounds condescending and truly I don't mean it that
way... We're just kind of plumbing the obvious here.)
...
No, it certainly doesn't. However, thanks for agreeing that he "maybe
should have dropped the subject and he did not". It's a start.
...
Of course. She exacerbated a bad situation.
...
Magda:
You are making excuses. I am not defending Alva's bad language nor her
skill with homeopathy, I am only objecting to Dave's treatment, and
appalled at the idea that it can be defended on such bases as the nature of
her replies and her level of skill. At risk of sounding like a kali-c, some
things are right, and some things are not right. What's not right to do to
someone you like and agree with, is *equally* not right to do to someone you
don't like or don't agree with. Granted it is *easier* to be fair and
judicious and thoughtful and kind with people that we like and agree with,
but that's not a great way to run a world, or to build community.
Magda:
Well... *I* found his post awfully offensive, so I'm not surprised that she
did too. But again, I'm not defending her response. I'm equally not
willing to say that her response made the rest of what followed okay.
Shannon:
Magda:
Okay, you have my attention!
Why do you not want to bring it to the
list? I think it's an important topic, and so far one that we don't seem to
be able to take steps on.
Which I guess is okay, because at this point "we" as a community still have
some, er, communication problems, such that any attempt to "define
homeopathy" would probably play out a whole lot like the Dave/Alva exchange
did, and that would be a huge tragedy. We NEED to get beyond this!
Yes, all of this is a real problem. How do you see developments such as
Scholten's, Mangialavore's, Sankharan's, etc., along this spectrum? To *my*
mind the big issue is that these folks are all well-grounded in the
Hahnemannian approach, and are *adding* to it rather than tossing it aside.
But still, they are applying methods that are new. Are they "classical", or
not? Should those methods be "allowed in", or not? What do you think?
Mm, I haven't seen any shoving down of throats... Everyone is free to
choose what they do. IMO *education* is the key, and that is what this list
is for.
No argument. Again, I am not defending her or her practice, only objecting
to her treatment.
You have more good points for discussion, but I have to go for a while.
Maybe I'll be able to look farther, later on .
Best wishes,
Shannon
