Perpetual Notion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 406
Aww. I'm sorry Donks, but you did get a trademark on the Kumar thread this week, so that should be something. 
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Incidentally, Homeo Man, next time you drop by would you care to answer my question about what you mean by the word "allopathic?"
Non-Sense Homeopath
Scholar
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 99
yes indeed the case is really miserable 
Whether allopathy or homeopathy are "absolute"? If not, these are yet "glass houses" not "stone houses". What then to thrw stones on each other? I see crudes+potencies at some later & suitale date to make these 'somewhat absolute'.
Are these two knowledges? If yes, should knowledges not respected? Pointing out only defects are empity portion of half filled glass may not be a right approach which can be a ignorance, foolishness or vested selfish interests UNLESS one is still a KID. Instead spend your valuable time, knowlede & efforts on mixing water in two glass in one glass to fill copletely/absolutely. "Try try again, you will gain alike human not alike crow". Why to try raising water level alike crow by throwing stones in pot, when alike human you are gifted with hands & two half filled pots are there & you can lift one pot by hand being human & can raise the level by pouring water in one pot to fill completely.
Just to start: MOM & other single salt based antacids produces somewhat homeopathic type effects with some additional effects. HOW??
Are these two knowledges? If yes, should knowledges not respected? Pointing out only defects are empity portion of half filled glass may not be a right approach which can be a ignorance, foolishness or vested selfish interests UNLESS one is still a KID. Instead spend your valuable time, knowlede & efforts on mixing water in two glass in one glass to fill copletely/absolutely. "Try try again, you will gain alike human not alike crow". Why to try raising water level alike crow by throwing stones in pot, when alike human you are gifted with hands & two half filled pots are there & you can lift one pot by hand being human & can raise the level by pouring water in one pot to fill completely.
Just to start: MOM & other single salt based antacids produces somewhat homeopathic type effects with some additional effects. HOW??
Neither are.Kumar said:
False dilemma.
Because one works and one doesn't.
I don't.
Yes.
No. One is nothing more than a historical curiosity which should have vanished by now.
Grownups can also recognize completely empty glasses for what they are.
One glass is empty.
Take your meaningless proverbs elsewhere.
One pot is empty. Or it might be filled with crap, I'm still not sure. I don't want to fill my water with crap. (Some) humans are also gifted with a brain. Use it. Just once.Why to try raising water level alike crow by throwing stones in pot, when alike human you are gifted with hands & two half filled pots are there & you can lift one pot by hand being human & can raise the level by pouring water in one pot to fill completely.
Donks said:
Are you/science "absolute" on all what you mentioned? If yes, what can be 'guarantee with surety' to it?
This is just where you make big mistake, not just some or science community who are gifted with brain(proof: open the head of all & see) but all are gifted. Isn't true in your science? However it can be your vision defect, you can't see it. Moreover God is said to be "omnipresent" so everyone is a form of God.
Every time you think about writing "absolute", stop.Kumar said:
Yes, some just decide not to use it for any higher functions.
As long as "your science" can't pass a simple DBPC study, it's not my vision that should be your concern.
I couldn't care less what god is said to be, or what conclusions you draw from it.
By the way, lets not go into TTTT/TTT, you didn't answer my questions. Just answer one:
Are you advocating that no medical treatments be used on any illnesses? Yes or no
Donks said:Every time you think about writing "absolute", stop.
Why, everytime when you will say anything with much certaininty, I shall be forced to use it. Otherwise say "not yet understood/known".
Yes, some just decide not to use it for any higher functions.
Self thinking only.
As long as "your science" can't pass a simple DBPC study, it's not my vision that should be your concern.
Effects are well noticed even in your studies. Search pubmed as I also indicated. Don't say effects were not found in DBPC studies.
I couldn't care less what god is said to be, or what conclusions you draw from it.
If I also not care or GOD don't care you, don't then mind.
By the way, lets not go into TTTT/TTT, you didn't answer my questions. Just answer one:
Yes, avoid it in future to avoid waste of time, energy etc.
Are you advocating that no medical treatments be used on any illnesses? Yes or no [/B]
no.
(I have not considered type of treatment, self treatment, natural angles, micro/basic levels etc. in above reply but considered social angles, nature's balances, current age entitlements, macro/gross levels etc.)
False dilemma.Kumar said:
No idea what this means.
Effects were not found in proper DBPC studies. Is it ok?
I see words, I see an attempt at a sentece, but I sure as hell don't see any meaning here.
There's a lot of considerations after that no. Let's try to clear the air a little.no.
(I have not considered type of treatment, self treatment, natural angles, micro/basic levels etc. in above reply but considered social angles, nature's balances, current age entitlements, macro/gross levels etc.)
Do you advocate stopping all treatments designed to heal or alleviate diseases that are be fatal in nature, that go against "nature's balance"? For instance, do you advocate stopping treatment for diabetes? For cancer? For AIDS?
This answer is contradictory. Either you advocate treatments that go against "nature's balance" or you advocate progressing towards "nature's balance." You can't have both. Pick one.Kumar said:No, otherwise how we shall progress towards nature's directions/balance.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I wouldn't say that they aren't. But this is something that you have repeatedly claimed. Why are you asking other people to justify your position?Kumar said:
Treatment. Quarantine if necessary. I wouldn't kill them.Kumar said:
Since you insist on this line of questioning, let's proceed.
What would you do if diseased animals were putting humans at risk? What would you do if diseased humans were putting other humans at risk?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
He seems to be backpeddling quite a bit at the moment. Here he is claiming that he is "not an advocater of homeopathy or a enemy of modern syste" despite all he's said in the past about "mass existing, "least adversities" etc. Does he really think we'll have forgotten everything he's posted in the past? Not that he seems able to remember anything that anyone else has posted, of course.Donks said:
Maybe someone else has got hold of the keys to the Kumar!