At the simple level, I agree with Paul.
At a more complex level, to quote Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?" We believe we're right to try to get through to them, or at least to the lurkers, because we're right. They believe that we're just trying to annoy them, because they are the superior intellects and we are deeply stupid trolls who just don't understand their rarified thought processes.
I was reading a thread (
this one here) where someone came in and said she'd had a post rejected by a regular medicine discussion group, when she suggested that certain people posting there might benefit from some non-standard homoeopathy sort of thing. I find I can't quote a little bit without wanting to quote the lot, but basically she feels she is in the right, "hoping to bring some light into their dark journeys toward death - I wasn't pushing a methodology at anyone but genuinely thought my suggestion might help these people live through horrible experiences." But at the same time she uses this experience of censorship to raise a heartfelt cry for everyone who raises questions about the effectiveness of homoeopathy to be banned from the H'pathy board - probably starting with Prester John.
She has absolute confidence that the only motive anyone could have for coming to a homoeopathy board with contrary opinions is malice.
Of course there's no reason to ban or censor homoeopaths on this board, as its express purpose is to have a free discussion of all points of view. But I do have a lot of sympathy with the admin of the real medicine list who didn't want vulnerable people being talked into giving up their "increasingly higher doses of allo meds" in favour of something called "rescue remedy" (which even Hahnemann would have denounced).
How do we resolve this beyond each side simply yelling "I have the right to disseminate my opinion because I'm right" across an unbridgeable gulf?
I'm not sure you can, and in the end it comes back to Paul's view. If they want to ban people, they can. HH did. It's perfectly easy to set up a completely closed forum where membership is by vetted application only. If they don't do this, I think it's reasonable to assume they're open to contrary opinion, and act accordingly.
Edited to add: I took so long to write that that others got in first! Yes, Bignickel's religion comment is very pertinent. If they admitted openly that they're purely faith-based and in effect practising magic, I would have much less of a problem with them. It's the constant adoption of scientific posturing while making a complete mockery of genuine scientific thought that I find so offensive.
Rolfe.
