Jeff and Moderator

Perhaps you both have difficulty reading or is it poor short memory retention? I have said through out my posts ( if you care to read back) that Ch should stop practising, and address the allegations of abuse. I also agree that some of the information does not come from sources CH credited.
At the same time, people have received benefit. A paradox to be sure. Does it mean that I feel CH should continue to practise at this time, no. Do I think that he should walk, without answering to the allegations of abuse, no.

Rick,

I have no agenda here. However, I find the criticism mounted by Jeff Bowe increasingly alarmingly. His theme is attacking Hansard because of a "misrepresentation of the authemtic bon tradition." That is sort of like calling someone a "heretic" or an "enemy of the state" and then wanting them punished for it. Having lived through the stazi and generalissmo and now observing homeland security moving in the same direction, I must protest. By the same token, Mr. Bowe has indicated by his statements that he has no actual experience with which to judge the authenticity of what Hansard taught, wrote or practiced. He has also indicated a clear political agenda, and thus if anyone is subverting this site for their own purposes it is him.

I thus feel it is is necessary to oppose Jeff Bowe.

Also, not allowing people to express the mixed feelings they have about this whole mess is a misrepresentation of it. People feel the way they do because there has been good and bad done, not because they have an agenda or are subverting the thread. They are reflecrting the truth of the situation.

The title of this forum is cult education. That is part of the dilemma people involved with many eastern cults find themselves. They ask themselves, "is there some way to keep the good and get rid of the bad?"

Is there some way to be compassionate, be grateful for the good, and still stop the bad from happening?

If you just want this thread to be a critical one, irrespective of the agenda of the critics, and irrespective of the need for balanced reporting on the facts, then just say so and I will go away. No need to ban me.

Nonce:

Thank you for that clarification.

gondolf:

You are flaming and attempting to use this thread for attacks against another member.

This is against the rules.

You do seem to have an agenda.

To whom it may concern:

If anyone has documented evidence from hospital records or other objective sources regarding supposed "healings" by Hansard please reference that material.

Otherwise, don't make claims about miracles that have not been proven.

Hansard is beginning to sound like a faith healer.

This is not a thread to promote such claims.

Quote
rrmoderator
To whom it may concern:

If anyone has documented evidence from hospital records or other objective sources regarding supposed "healings" by Hansard please reference that material.

Otherwise, don't make claims about miracles that have not been proven.

Hansard is beginning to sound like a faith healer.

This is not a thread to promote such claims.

dear moderator,

i am concerned that you are polarizing the debate

licensed medicine isn't the only standard by which we can judge a medicinal effect - if it were, then the world health organization would not actively endorse and support the practice of traditional medicine

people should be able to come forward with their stories without having to debate the merits of complimentary and alternative medicine

if the moderator likes, i would be happy to provide references and resources for research in this area via private messaging

*kyung*

kyung:

No thanks.

This board is not about promoting your beliefs. And preaching here is against the rules you agreed to before posting.

Making unproven claims of "healings" is not a meaningful contribution to this message board and may mislead the public.

This is not a place to share "stories" about claimed miracles allegedly attributed to Hansard and/or other supposed "healers."

May I contribute a very significant fact that has now become clear following several discussions:

Mr. Hansard has worked in his London clinic with the help of other practitioners, business and PR advisors, staff and apprentices. Of all these people not one single person has come forward to openly state their name and publicly support his behaviour, either on this forum or on his petition.

Not one single name from all his London clinic associates over the last 10 years. Regardless of any healing abilities, this fact should speak to everyone.

Actually Ms Nathalie Mineau (former apprentice) Paul Nelson (Canadian supporter) and Terry Willard (Herbalist) seem (although one can never be sure if they were added by the[i:02f78bcaec] Master of Dur Con[/i:02f78bcaec]) to have endorsed Hansard's petition. As to the majority of collaborators, supporters and 'apprentices', while they may not have [i:02f78bcaec]openly [/i:02f78bcaec]supported him, here and elsewhere, they refuse to add their name to any public condemnation also.

Hardly surprising that most people have chosen to withdrawn and not add their name to the against list given the 'name and shame' tactics employed.

After all if they do place their names in the list against CH what is the probability that they will turn up in an online blog?

James