Minutus

Dear Colleagues

I have respectfully requested the colleagues post to Minutus with politeness and care for other people's feelings.

This seems to have been ignored.

I have stated what Minutus is about. We are trying to educate ourselves and others about Homeopathy and Homeopaths.
The idea is not to turn observers OFF, but to get them excited about homeopathy.

So rather than arguing about how many angels dance on the head of pin, ask for references from the Organon or other masters' writings.

When the answers does not come back, the case is proved.

Should I sense any impoliteness in any posting, the author will be stopped from posting to Minutus directly and their writings will be closely monitored.

The choice is yours, but the integrity of Minutus is mine.

Regards

Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

Hi Luise,

(Soroush, I hope it's not too much of a liberty to offer some thoughts
before you do)
No... I think that approach is well in line with the stated focus of
the list on Hahnemannian approach. If a method is Hahnemannian, then
reference should be able to be applied. If not, then it is up to the
"audience" to decide what to make of it. I think that will be a *huge*
improvement, as it removes the wrangling and insults! Just show that
it's "non-Hahnemannian", and move on. Some will care about the
difference, and some won't--but this isn't the right place to argue
about it, at least not with the strong opinions and tempers currently
in attendance!
The stated focus is Hahnemannian. While there's some quibbling that
can be done, about whether *certain* things are or are not, in the main
it's clear. I see nothing to be gained in trying to force discussions
that go against the owner's intent for the list--we can take them to
Homeolist, or Homeopathy Open, or Beyond Homeopathy, or another.
(Personally I've been on all three for years, and Minutus is the only
one that generates piles of mail! For which reason I'm particularly
sad at having it removed from the broader discussion. But--I recommend
it--join all three, then if you want to un-join any later, that's
easily done.)

Huh, originally it was definitely the latter.
Hey, don't argue with Soroush! He's just doing his best to carry out
Ardavan's wishes for the list.

)

Those are relevant under the topic of "obstacles to cure", "lifestyle",
etc. We've asked that before...

Ditto.

For all these years Ardavan has very studiously avoided placing any
more than broad and general limits--"classical in focus," and "treat
each other with respect." It's worked *most* of the time, but does not
work when anyone is trying to force their own views, and esp. doing
with in a ... um, harsh manner, without regard for the wishes of the
owner or moderator, and without regard for the (few and general) list
guidelines. It's too bad that a firm policy has been demanded, but
since certain people cannot make peace otherwise, then it seems much
better to honor the guidelines, and take conflicting topics elsewhere.

Past experience says that any topic that can be discussed here
*peacefully*, would be alright. So what would be fine at certain
times, would not be at others. But Luise, you'll be able to figure it
out!

Shannon

Hi Soroush.
To me that means: Any criticism of homeopathy is unwanted. Question:
of homeopathy in its broad sense as e.g. advocated by Shannon or to
homeopathy in the sense considered the only true one by some?

Is the list supposed to be a forum for presenting homeopathy to the
non-homeopaths or is it a discussion forum for homeopaths?

Do you mean to say that only the opinions of the masters are relevant?
If so - would you let us have a list of the people you consider to be
masters?

What is considered to be arguing about how many angels can dance on a
pin? If I e. g. would point out that Ardavan's concept of miasms
(which I share) does not coincide with Hahnemann's concept of only 3
of them -- would that be arguing about those angels on a pin?

Would the dangers of aspartane, handies, mercury-fillings .... be
accepted topics? Where is the limit?

How about nutrition?

These questions are of real importance to me. I do not like to feel
insecure whether a post is inside the parameters set by you. I
certainly do not want to compromise the integrity of minutus as
perceived by you.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

I agree, it's a difficult situation.
I wish things had not been allowed to continue for so long in this
"fuzzy" way, and I wish "good behavior" had been enforced, starting
years ago. (I know that some do not agree with me. ) But,
that's what we've got... Meanwhile, there are the other lists!

Shannon

This unrelenting requirement for peace (what needs to be cured) - you could be onto a chronic Belladonna case here or maybe Haliae-lc.

I could ask for every single example where 'good behaviour' hasn't been in force (with full quotes) and that would have to include the non Hahnemannian's side as well. People have disagreed, what is the big deal.

We all would like some kind of peace I guess, I for one am still amazed that some have to uphold Hahnemann's teachings to this degree on a Hahnemannian list, so it is a good job there are other lists.
Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Hi Shannon,
I fully agree, as you know, with the part about respectful/peaceful
manner, and have no problems with it.

As to the last part you are wrong.

One of my great weaknesses is that I cannot live comfortable within
"fuzzy" boundaries. They have to be well-defined.

Of course I have had to live in situations where the boundaries were
not well-defined. I had tro put pu with it - but wasnot comfortable.

The emphasis is on "I had to". Where I did not have to I did not.

That's all - that's not a personal matter. I am certainly not going to
argue the matter with Soroush - I will accept whatever he says.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Dear colleagues who post on Minutus,
Having come back from holiday I have to a degree caught up with the exchanges which were causing concern. Necessary action to rectify has also been taken.
I thank you all for keeping Minutus civil.
Now as to the points raised by Luise:
Minutus has never been monitored rigidly so as to allow a wide scope for discussion. So:
1- The Minutus Group was established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members.
All aspect of Classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy can be discussed - including it criticism and criticism of Hn and other masters. We are not running a censored site. It is an open but focused (classical Hahnemannian homeopathy) site.
2- We are visited by homeopaths and non-homeopath and also those who sadly belong to the anti-homeopathy camp. We should have something for them all. Visiting Minutus should be a positive and fulfilling experience with the person leaving the site thinking 'what a bunch of professional and helpful guys who know what they are talking about' and importantly 'I have learnt something'.
3- All matters affecting health can be brought up and discussed on Minutus. However, the focal point should remain on Homeopathy.
So if you think aspects of nutrition, other forms of treatment, mercury fillings, mobile phones etc affect one's health and can present cases or relevant info, then please feel free to present them. If you feel unsure - you can always put OFF TOPIC on the subject line.
4- On points of philosophy, I would recommend that we use references from the works of Hn and others. Rather than being restrictive by naming who may be regarded as a Master, I would rather some one say "X has said Y about Z" and give the relevant references.
This will open up the subject for discussion and would be a learning/teaching tool.
5- Luise has specifically referred to Ardavan's work
"What is considered to be arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin? If I e. g. would point out that Ardavan's concept of miasms (which I share) does not coincide with Hahnemann's concept of only 3 of them -- would that be arguing about those angels on a pin?"
Any one studying Ardavan's work on Miasm and also his Repertorium Virosum (For which one day I hope he is awarded the Nobel prize for medicine), would very quickly realise that the work is based on extensive reading of Hn's writings and a full understanding of where Hn was coming from.
The work is an improvement on Hn's initial work utilising 21st century knowledge of the effects of micro organisms. Hn did not have these tools and thus reached a limit.
Consider that Hn had only 90 remedies - are we to only use those 90, or can we extend the range?
I hope this has clarified the position. Our request as ever is:
Be civil (as if you are addressing your patient and you wish them to come back and see you again).
Be clear and concise in your writings. (remember MINIMUM DOSE?)
[Perfection in its finality is NOT when nothing can be added, BUT when nothing can be taken away! anon.]
Be kind and helpful **
Be patient (Do not press the send button too quickly - the subject does not go away).
LEARN and Teach
** Actually this is one of the things that I love about Minutus, if any one of us needs help there is advice available almost 24/7/365.
Lastly, if you think other points should be considered to improve Minutus and our exchanges, please let me know privately (finrod@finrod.co.uk ) or through Minutus.
With my thanks for your understanding and co-operation.
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Luise Kunkle
Sent: 02 July 2009 02:50
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Ardavan Shahrdar'
Subject: Re: [Minutus] EXCHANGES - FINAL WARNING
Hi Soroush.
To me that means: Any criticism of homeopathy is unwanted. Question:
of homeopathy in its broad sense as e.g. advocated by Shannon or to
homeopathy in the sense considered the only true one by some?

Is the list supposed to be a forum for presenting homeopathy to the
non-homeopaths or is it a discussion forum for homeopaths?

Do you mean to say that only the opinions of the masters are relevant?
If so - would you let us have a list of the people you consider to be
masters?

What is considered to be arguing about how many angels can dance on a
pin? If I e. g. would point out that Ardavan's concept of miasms
(which I share) does not coincide with Hahnemann's concept of only 3
of them -- would that be arguing about those angels on a pin?

Would the dangers of aspartane, handies, mercury-fillings .... be
accepted topics? Where is the limit?

How about nutrition?

These questions are of real importance to me. I do not like to feel
insecure whether a post is inside the parameters set by you. I
certainly do not want to compromise the integrity of minutus as
perceived by you.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Dear Luise
You wrote:
"...the limitations of Hahnemann's work due to the insufficient knowledge of his time also applies to other things."
By all means, if you feel that there are other areas of what Hn has started that are not complete - please bring them up for discussion.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Luise Kunkle
Sent: 05 July 2009 00:28
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Ardavan Shahrdar'
Subject: RE: [Minutus] EXCHANGES - FINAL WARNING
Hi Soroush,
The way you have clarified it now - I very much agree.

If we assert: "X has said Y about Z" we should quote X - either just
the very part where he says it or, if we quote a longish piece,
somehow mark the part we are referring to. Then we can state our own
opinion - again marking it clearly as our opinion.
I have studied his writings pretty thoroughly and I fully agree with
you. However....
...the limitations of Hahnemann's work due to the insufficient
knowledge of his time also applies to other things. We cannot limit
development of his teachings to microbiology and specifically to its
application to miasms - many other things have also been learned
since his time.

This has been my point all along and I used Ardavan's work to show
what I mean.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Soroush,
The way you have clarified it now - I very much agree.

If we assert: "X has said Y about Z" we should quote X - either just
the very part where he says it or, if we quote a longish piece,
somehow mark the part we are referring to. Then we can state our own
opinion - again marking it clearly as our opinion.
I have studied his writings pretty thoroughly and I fully agree with
you. However....
...the limitations of Hahnemann's work due to the insufficient
knowledge of his time also applies to other things. We cannot limit
development of his teachings to microbiology and specifically to its
application to miasms - many other things have also been learned
since his time.

This has been my point all along and I used Ardavan's work to show
what I mean.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Soroush,
Discussion of other approaches have been attacked o this list or waved
away because on the grounds that they are not suitable to minutus
because they are ot "classical Hahnemanaian" - without giving the
supporters a chance of trying to show that they are ot "against"
Hahemannian teachings but instead may be an evolution of them.

The most recent example has been Irene - and your most recedt post is
an example of this.

Even without citig the Heilkunst method, I can give as examples
that come to mind without further trying to remember: Sehgal's and
Banerji's.

I have not the slightest doubt that Ardavan's would be among them if
it were ot Ardavan's;-)

So, thank you for your suggestion that I introduce topics I may
consider to be evolutions - but NO thank you.

I would love a discussion on Ardavan's methhod, though:-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========