Minutus

Hi, Irene --

Yes, I've acknowledged that ACHENA is CHE, not CHC. Be that as it may, observation #2 was: "… you don't make clear the basis for accusing the… e-mail under discussion in this thread of being spam or for accusing Leilanae of forwarding spam".

Since you've now acknowledged having made the accusation, it's incumbent on you either to justify it or to withdraw it.

Kind regards,

John

I did not participate in that discussion.
You are being intentionally obtuse.
There was no email under discussion by me.
I could not give a fig what was being forwarded and did not bother to look and see what was forwarded.
Why should I? It makes zero difference to the point I wrote about.
I already told you all that - but you choose to ignore whatever does not suit your fantasy?

Quit misrepresenting what I wrote about. NOWHERE did I ever refer to whatever was in the forwarded material as it was of zero relevance, whatever it was.

I'll thank you to leave my name out of your wild assumptions and off base conclusions.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Looks like you joined the week after there was a Uterine Fibroid thread.
Search for it and see if the info is helpful.
I'm sure those who participated will provide additional info.
Susan

Hi, Irene --

If I'm being obtuse, it's not at all intentional. The matter seems pretty straightforward. Leilanae forwarded information and a link that she judged might be useful to forward. You jumped on her -- without, as you now confess, having known anything at all about what she was forwarding -- with an accusation of posting what you claimed was unethical and illegal on the basis of your utter presumption that what she had forwarded was commercial advertising ("spam").

You've admitted all this but continue to support my first observation -- your tendency to hold mutually contradictory positions -- by now insisting that you were not discussing the e-mail you maintained was spam.

And, as always, in being challenged over what you have said, you claim misrepresentation and presumptions.

Next you'll cry that you're being unkindly treated in having your own words quoted back to you -- without the least thought to those whom you accuse of everything under the sun, including illegal acts.

But the lesson in this is not that everybody else is presumptuous and prepared to act illegally in order to offend you, Irene; it is that your precipitous accusations make you look very foolish, and that you would better preserve the remnants of your false dignity if you looked before you leapt. I say this not because I expect, after all these iterations of the same foolish mistakes, that you will recognise the value in growing up at this point, but, first, in order to draw attention to the invalidity of the accusations and limit their destructiveness, and, second, in order that, when you do finally begin to grow up, you'll be able to put your finger on exactly what kind of fool you once were.

Those who think I'm being a little hard on you will change their minds with more experience at the sharp end of the self-congratulatory bullying self-contradictory nonsense you offer as self-righteous indignation.

Kind regards,

John
--

.

"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

Dear Leilanae,

Please ignore the irritating person on Minutus who wants to make a mountain out of nonexistent issue he has invented.

I had a small comment about a principle to do with forwarding when one is asked to do so by a writer.
It was not intended to "accuse" you of anything.
I'm pretty sure you had the ability to see that.

The rest of the big storm in a teacup was invented by our resident troublemaker,
whom I shall hopefully get wise enough to ignore. (He feeds off the attention.)

My apologies for any misunderstanding towards yourself.
Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."