On 15 Dec 97 at 1:17, Scott Berner wrote: > Greetings to the List and Hello Dear Mike! > > First, let me just say that I am in no way trying, or desiring to > alienate a friend and coworker in this effort ... I am sorry if I > offended you, it was not intentional.
In light of the following, apology willingly, happily, *joyfully* accepted. My apologies to Jack, who felt moved to comment, and the rest of the group for airing all this on-list. > Second, the "credibility" allowed the "argyria scare", in my > opinion, is a matter of giving ground to the opposition. As long as even the *weakest* argument (mine) is sufficient to logically disprove the skeptics, and we can add reinforcement like the info you cited from SOTA and Beck and all of our experiences, we should not give any ground at all. But we need to recognise that we share the stage here, like a series of speakers at a symposium. We all advocate the same thing, but each of us speaks with a different voice, and from a different perspective. We each must try to reach those members of the audience who will hear our particular message while reinforcing, rather than undermining the other speakers. Harshness must be taken off-line, and public disagreement or correction needs to be handled with the utmost care and sensitivity. > Third, the research of our own people, and those who have gone > forward in other circles with this study is substantial enough > (for any reasonably rational person with just the most miniscule > amount of guts). Those who are willing to assess the testimony, > and venture forward to experiment with it themselves will find out > personally the truth of these findings. You are totally correct! In my opinion, of course. <g> > Those who are lacking in these catagories/qualifications can sit on > the side lines and watch the game. They can gripe all they want, we > can spend our entire lives trying to convince these folks of > something we know, and they will never have enough evidence to > prove it ABSOLUTELY. In my opinion. I think it is just a question of how far we cast our nets. Some folks will need to be brought very slowly to the conclusions we have reached, and can't be made to come along all at once. They may need time to overcome their dependence on authority, their conditioning by propaganda, their fear of independence. I can imagine two new persons listening to each of us for the first time. One might hear your heartfelt personal testimony and brand you a total yahoo, while being convinced to look farther by my modest claims and understated cites to literature and scientific proof. The other person might find me to be a boring and pompous ass and be totally unmoved, while making a great leap of faith by the strength of your witnessing. We speak in many tongues, and many are moved. > Fourth, please don't misjudge my zeal in this matter, or the > forcefulness of my arguement, to in ANY WAY indicate a desire to > QUIET THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS ON THIS LIST. Everyone is entitled to > their opinion, but let us seek to have reason rule, OK? I suspect > you will even agree on this one. :) <still not snide> We agree, sir. > Fifth, you were right, we were not speaking of the same man in > regard to Peter Lindeman, MY ERROR!! And I apologize for making it. > I was hearing Bruce Marx, when you were saying Peter Lindeman. So I > made one mistake...whew.....:) I am relieved we have uncovered the problem. May God save Bruce Marx! > OK ALLY, if you are not still miffed beyond recovery, let's shake > "posts" and get back to work....howboutit? :) ROFLMAO!! Back at you! > God Bless, > > (And thanks for your prayers too!) Amen. Mike [Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] [[email protected] ] [Speaking only for himself... ]
