Date: July 08, 2007 10:25AM
"This is no argument or doubt regarding the fraudulent nature of Hansard's claims,"
It is true that he has been unable to back up his claims of having been trained in the manner typically cited by him.
"Unless of course one chooses to ignore the glaring inconsistencies, contradictions, distortions, plagiarism and deceptions, which are woven throughout his Dur-Con fiction.The world can of course be flat, all that is required to make it so is belief, after all why let inconvenient facts obstruct matters?"
One of the inconsistancies is the fact that he obtained a body of knoweldge which he consistantly demonstrated at workshops and to patients and readers of three books. While this might be an inconveniant fact obstructing the dur-con campaign, it is an important consideration when determining the appropriate response to Hansard. One who has not attended such workshops, or read said books is in no position to pass judgement.
If for instance, he learned something of value and is able to demonstrate that, the fact that he misrepresented the source of his learning is not a crime worthy of time in the dungeon. In the free world witches don't get burned at the stake anymore and the inquisition has long since passed.
Some people would say that his story was just marketing and the true test of misrepresentation in that industry is whether or not he can deliver what he says he can deliver. In the end, students and patients and readers will not care one iota where or how he learned what he learned. They will care whether he can deliver, and that is the criteria they will use to judge him.
So he is a self made man; so what?
The only real issue is not bruised egos but whatever abuse was actually suffered and how he is going to make ammends accordingly.