Page 9 of 10

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:32 am
by John Harvey
Well, Irene, what can I say except that, in denying your own claims as soon as they're shown to be baseless, you've fulfilled beautifully the prediction I made as to your actions.

If that was a different Irene de Villiers who sent the e-mails I quoted verbatim, then you could clear all this confusion up by making that disclaimer. Otherwise, you have only yourself to hold to account, I'm afraid, for the clear declarations in the messages from that Irene de Villiers, who plainly confused Bach flower remedies with homoeopathy and used that confusion to bolster her usual case that monopharmacy is a limitation on homoeopathy that is both unnecessary and extrinsic.

If it is not already plain, after all these iterations of your heated denials of your own words, that those words do not serve you well but instead paint you as a foolish fraud, then perhaps it never will be. More's the pity.

Kind regards,

John

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 11:38 am
by John Harvey
Oh, Irene, I overlooked this message, and I clearly owe you an apology. You have after all made a disclaimer: the quotes of your e-mails are, you say, "misquoting" you.

At last we get to the bottom of the mystery of the two Irene de Villierses. Which quotes, exactly, were inaccurate, Irene, can you say? Let's unmask once and for all the false Irene de Villiers, the one who claims, in your name but in her own words:

======

(1)
8:36 a.m. GMT, 23 July:
"> BFR have nothing to do with homeopathy!
I'm not so sure.
Dr Edward Bach, who devised the Bach flower remedies, was inspired by Hahnemann's homeopathy.
The documented things each flower essence helps, are very similar to a proving, and make the bach remedies *predictable* as to what they each will help. It includes mind, general and specific symptoms, much as with homeopathy. … The big difference is that they are found to be synergistic in combination. In fact my finding is that they NEED to be in combination to work well. … So while not identical to homeopathy - and not potentized - they are extremely dilute, so no side effects (and aggravations being rare but possible with a few of them) - and they are individualized so that the synergistic choice acts as one individually matched, balancing remedy"
======
(2)
8:49 a.m. GMT, 23 July:
"> My understanding is that no comprehensive knowledge of the pathogenesis of the medicines in either system is required or indeed available.
For BFR's you'd be wrong. (Can't speak for ayurveda, I have not studied it)

The knowledge of pathogenesis of the BFRs is both essential and available, and as with homeopathy, is a growing body of knowledge. Without it you can toss your BFR remedies down the sink."
======
(3)
12:59 p.m. GMT, 23 July 2013:
Why not?

The law of Similars is very likely invoked as in homeopathy. The SET of symptoms associated with the remedy ("the remedy" being the synergistic "set" or mix needed to make a whole remedy) is matched (similar) to those of the individual needing the remedy. … No. It is not polypharmacy."

======
Did you send none of those e-mails, Irene? Let's see whether we can work out who the Irene de Villiers is who sets out systematically to mislead and does so in your name.
Kind regards --
John

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:48 pm
by Irene de Villiers
Your insincerity is as charming as your out of context clippings.
SO long as you throw clippings around out of context, it's an ugly game YOU are playing to misrepresent.
NOT appreciated, and not worthy of response.

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."

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:06 pm
by Irene de Villiers
Re John's obloquy

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as
you perceive that the other party has the upper hand, and that
you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the
subject of dispute, to the disputant himself, and in some way
attacking his person.
But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn
your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful
character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the
virtues of the body, or to mere animalism.
--Arthur Schopenhauer (1788—1860)

Once you've told a lie or slandered someone, be sure to repeat
it as often as possible until it becomes true. 'Members and front
organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade
our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them
as fascist or Nazi [..or as foolish frauds....] The association will,
after enough repetition, become "fact" in the public mind.'
--Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee, [1943]
Despite that.....He that flings dirt at another dirtieth himself most.

******************************************************************************************

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:57 pm
by Tanya Marquette
yes, denialists use this tactic all the time against homeopathy.
the GOP is notorious for doing this on all kinds of social issues
as well as their failed economics. this tactic actually has a
name which my feeble brain has momentarily lost

t

Re: BFR

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:48 pm
by Sheri Nakken
John is one of the most Hahnemannian of people
here and I suggest Irene, you are the pot calling the kettle black.
I appreciate John's insights into the Organon and homeopathy
Sheri

At 03:06 PM 7/28/2013, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ &
http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

Next classes start April 18, 19, 25

Re: BFR

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:25 am
by Irene de Villiers
Sheri,
This has NOT been about what I do. THAT is in fact the point!
I write very clearly about what I do, and you can judge it for all you are worth, I do not care - it's YOUR opinion about what I DO.
But this has been nothing to do with who does what.

It has been about John's MIS-representation about what I do.
That is a completely different matter, and defamatory at the least.
If John could stick to a fact for a minute there'd be no problem. But he doesn't know how and does not wish to know.
I have no problem with anyone's opinion of anything I actually do.

I have a HUGE problem with being misrepresented what I do as that affects my professional reputation - earned by hard work - for what I DO DO.

This matters - as people like yourself, start believing John's propaganda and untruths about me.
And other start thinking this is about a difference of opinion on homeopathy.
It is NOT.
I care noto what John's views are on homeopathy - he is entitled to hold whatever views he choses - as am I.
But we BOTh are entitled to have our views CORRECTLY represented.
NOT the opposite.
I'd prefer the truth and so should you....whether you agree with what I do or not.

I do not claim to be "Hahnemannian" whatever that means. (Don't explain, I simply do not like to "belong" to groups or religions or belief systems; I can think for myself.)
I use the principles of Homeopathy and the Law of Similars, and science, to meet aphorism one.
John is claiming I do something else. I object only to being misrepresented with untruths that deliberately undermine what I worked to be known for (whether you like that or not).

Trolls do this misrepresenting to undermine others on all kinds of lists. They tell nothing of themselves (ring a bell here?) but choose someone (it is usually a person considered knowledgeable) to misrepresent, till they are destroyed in the eyes of the list members who do not have the energy to follow the untruths (Shannon tried but John is an expert at redirecting) and start believing it is about difference of opinion - you just fell straight into that trap - as John intends.
The troll wins, and has ruined a good person's reputation exactly as intended - by misrepresenting them over and over again - till nobody knows my views and they believe what John describes.
I've had experience of the John's of the lists before - they do not vary. They do nothing else but chose someone to undermine.

Vick writes:
Vicki, if that was all this was about, I'd never bother to answer. I do not care who has what opinion.
This is about misrepresentation consistently and repeatedly and forcefully.
THAT is not anything to do with who thinks what,.
It is a purely malicious activity, and needs to be seen as such.
THAT is why I still write emails like this in response.. If I do not, I am painted here as someone I am not.
I've tried that - the troll wins if I play dead. People start writing to me that "Oh as you do such and such (troll's version) then.....fill in some abhorrent-to-me characterization of how I am incorrectly believed to be, but which is now in the public belief system.

Playing dead for trolls never worked. You are asking me to do that because it is convenient for YOU.
I'm trying to put truth back. Because it is NOT convenient for me to have my reputation messed up by John, while others soak up the untruths.
I only ask for truth.
I have no wish to influence anyone's *opinion* about the truth.

What I am seeing now - eg Sheri's email and Vicki's - is opinions about me based on UNtruths invented and misrepresented by John.
I have EVERY right to object to that. John's writing is defamatory and thus illegal (because such writing IS well known to be damaging to the victim's reputation, through untrue statements made).

Why the list manager allows that defamatory writing which is purely malicious and nothing to do with opinion, I do not understand. But clearly it is allowed here.

Therefore I WILL continue to have to waste my time that could be better spent, in protecting the TRUTH of what I do (hence my earned reputation for what I actually do and why) ....... so that you all may have whatever opinions you want about the things I do and the reasons I do them - and not about the things John CLAIMS I do and the reasons John CLAIMS I do them.

There is zero positive intention in John's claims. That is clear.
There is only positive intention in my wanting the truth instead, with whatever opinions follow about the TRUTH.
I'm sorry that you find it inconvenient for me to want truth, and thus not "shut up and go away" conveniently.
Sometimes we need to stand up and be counted for our truths.

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."

Re: BFR

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:17 am
by Roger B
I have no problem with John whatsoever. John is on my permanent shun list; if I see his name as the author, I just delete it without reading it. My feelings are too precious to me for some stranger to spew his animosity at.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: furryboots@icehouse.net
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:25:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Sheri,
This has NOT been about what I do. THAT is in fact the point!
I write very clearly about what I do, and you can judge it for all you are worth, I do not care - it's YOUR opinion about what I DO.
But this has been nothing to do with who does what.

It has been about John's MIS-representation about what I do.
That is a completely different matter, and defamatory at the least.
If John could stick to a fact for a minute there'd be no problem. But he doesn't know how and does not wish to know.
I have no problem with anyone's opinion of anything I actually do.

I have a HUGE problem with being misrepresented what I do as that affects my professional reputation - earned by hard work - for what I DO DO.

This matters - as people like yourself, start believing John's propaganda and untruths about me.
And other start thinking this is about a difference of opinion on homeopathy.
It is NOT.
I care noto what John's views are on homeopathy - he is entitled to hold whatever views he choses - as am I.
But we BOTh are entitled to have our views CORRECTLY represented.
NOT the opposite.
I'd prefer the truth and so should you....whether you agree with what I do or not.

I do not claim to be "Hahnemannian" whatever that means. (Don't explain, I simply do not like to "belong" to groups or religions or belief systems; I can think for myself.)
I use the principles of Homeopathy and the Law of Similars, and science, to meet aphorism one.
John is claiming I do something else. I object only to being misrepresented with untruths that deliberately undermine what I worked to be known for (whether you like that or not).

Trolls do this misrepresenting to undermine others on all kinds of lists. They tell nothing of themselves (ring a bell here?) but choose someone (it is usually a person considered knowledgeable) to misrepresent, till they are destroyed in the eyes of the list members who do not have the energy to follow the untruths (Shannon tried but John is an expert at redirecting) and start believing it is about difference of opinion - you just fell straight into that trap - as John intends.

The troll wins, and has ruined a good person's reputation exactly as intended - by misrepresenting them over and over again - till nobody knows my views and they believe what John describes.
I've had experience of the John's of the lists before - they do not vary. They do nothing else but chose someone to undermine.

Vick writes:
Vicki, if that was all this was about, I'd never bother to answer. I do not care who has what opinion.
This is about misrepresentation consistently and repeatedly and forcefully.
THAT is not anything to do with who thinks what,.
It is a purely malicious activity, and needs to be seen as such.
THAT is why I still write emails like this in response.. If I do not, I am painted here as someone I am not.
I've tried that - the troll wins if I play dead. People start writing to me that "Oh as you do such and such (troll's version) then.....fill in some abhorrent-to-me characterization of how I am incorrectly believed to be, but which is now in the public belief system.

Playing dead for trolls never worked. You are asking me to do that because it is convenient for YOU.
I'm trying to put truth back. Because it is NOT convenient for me to have my reputation messed up by John, while others soak up the untruths.
I only ask for truth.
I have no wish to influence anyone's *opinion* about the truth.

What I am seeing now - eg Sheri's email and Vicki's - is opinions about me based on UNtruths invented and misrepresented by John.
I have EVERY right to object to that. John's writing is defamatory and thus illegal (because such writing IS well known to be damaging to the victim's reputation, through untrue statements made).

Why the list manager allows that defamatory writing which is purely malicious and nothing to do with opinion, I do not understand. But clearly it is allowed here.

Therefore I WILL continue to have to waste my time that could be better spent, in protecting the TRUTH of what I do (hence my earned reputation for what I actually do and why) ....... so that you all may have whatever opinions you want about the things I do and the reasons I do them - and not about the things John CLAIMS I do and the reasons John CLAIMS I do them.

There is zero positive intention in John's claims. That is clear.
There is only positive intention in my wanting the truth instead, with whatever opinions follow about the TRUTH.
I'm sorry that you find it inconvenient for me to want truth, and thus not "shut up and go away" conveniently.
Sometimes we need to stand up and be counted for our truths.

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."

Re: BFR

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:22 am
by Sheri Nakken
and who are you in the grand scheme of things Roger? How many years have you studied homeopathy or practiced?
Sheri

At 01:17 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
________________________________
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

Next classes start April 18, 19, 25

Re: BFR

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:44 am
by Roger B
Sheri, do you mean that a person who has not studied homeopathy must necessarily accept animosity (a funny way of spelling hatred and anger) from those who have studied homeopathy. Golly, if that is the case, I guess I should just stop coming to this forum. Funny thing is, until you got hostile with this email I am responding to, no one off of my shun list has been hostile with me.

Or, do you mean that if someone studies homeopathy they are automatically forgiven for hostility.

Or, do you mean that us STUPID people who have not studied homeopathy are too STUPID to realize that when it feels like hostility coming from a homeopath that it is really loving kindness. But the funny thing is that I get loving kindness from many people in this forum. So I guess I am just mistaken.

Do I need to put you on my shun list or do I need to just shut the *$%$# up and take it from people like you because you are so high and &^%^%$# mighty that I should just swallow it.

As far as I can see, homeopathic theory and experience means exactly zip when compared with love vs. hatred. If you and John can't be more loving, then I just delete you and John and try to learn from those who have their heads connected to their hearts.

And, also, since I am not a homeopath, am I to assume that I don't count in the grand scheme of things, that I am so unimportant that I should just accept hostility from people like you, that my 81% in the GRE advanced test in philosophy (without any college preparation whatsoever) was just a fluke and that I really am stupid and deserving of all of your put-down power.

Consider yourself shunned. I will erase anything that you post before I read it. And just to make sure, I will erase my entire delete folder afterward just in case I get tempted.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: homeopathycuresyou@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:22:53 +0100
Subject: RE: [Minutus] BFR

and who are you in the grand scheme of things Roger? How many years have you studied homeopathy or practiced?
Sheri

At 01:17 AM 7/29/2013, you wrote:
________________________________
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

Next classes start April 18, 19, 25