| | So I got this email from George:
"On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:01 AM, George Campbell <george.00c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi " Daniel M. Ingram"
Do not threaten me or bully me for that is a grave offense. I have not broken any rule for what I have posted on your forum is a matter of public record and it was in a particular context. What you should think really is that you are endorsing and advocating for a man who is not only been tried for fraud in court of law, and for abdicating his sworn duties, but a man who is committing grave wrong by deception.
I have no interest in part of any spiritual practice which is knowingly and willfully harming people. So, rest assured I will not participate in your forum, which evidently does not tolerate or encourage any dissent or rational argument. Further correspondence in this matter will be tantamount to you harassing me. And, In future if you have anything to write or debate with me, kindly do it publicly and not through these bullying tactics in private emails.
best wishes and good luck"
And this is my reply:
Dear George,
That you would consider any email reply harraasment is perhaps a bit reactionary,so, by your request, here it is in public:
If you will note: I have said it online and will say it again: I am no fan of Richard's online persona at all, though have never met him in person, so will reserve judgement beyond stating that, as similar critiques are leveled at me all the time based on misinterpretations of my online postings and videos, etc., so this has nothing to do with him personally or defense of him particularly, and my response was a blanket rule against posting things that in this country would be considered private. He is perfectly capable of defending himself and needs no help from me that I am aware of.
Dissent and rational argument occur constantly and are encouraged an any cursory perusal of the DhO will indicate, and the point again is to keep it practical and about your practice and what works or doesn't when possible. Again, we are on the same side here. The DhO was founded to promote that, and if you wish to participate in that, please do so.
As a US licensed physician who owns the DhO, I must make sure that what happens there is legal, and would appreciate some sensitivity to that.
In this country, one breech of the sort of information you posted gets people fired on the spot and they can be fined staggering sums. I refer you here:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page
so you don't think I am making this up or being arbitrary in your case. Numerous other links there will clarify what information is covered under HIPAA. Thus, it will not be tolerated at all, as I am sure you can now understand if you bother to go there and look up what we are talking about and the clear and unambiguous legal standards here in the US on this matter.
I am sorry that you don't see the difference and the line that differentiates one from the other. You will note that all the rest of your critiques remain, as do numerous other threads debating Richard, both pro and con and in-between, which would argue against your point about this all having to do with Richard, which it absolutely doesn't.
I would still advocate for your own practice to focus on your own practice and not so much on any one person, Richard or otherwise, but obviously if Richard is that important to you then that is your right, obviously. However, fixation on particular personas gets so old so quickly here and has caused much that is damaging and unhelpful on previous occasions that I would again recommend considering trying something else to see if it might work for you. If you have some set of practices, techniques or conceptual frameworks that have improved your practice and allowed you to plunge into some interesting territory, that is the stuff that is generally appreciated most.
Be well,
Daniel
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:01 AM, George Campbell <george.00c@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi " Daniel M. Ingram"
Do not threaten me or bully me for that is a grave offense. I have not broken any rule for what I have posted on your forum is a matter of public record and it was in a particular context. What you should think really is that you are endorsing and advocating for a man who is not only been tried for fraud in court of law, and for abdicating his sworn duties, but a man who is committing grave wrong by deception.
I have no interest in part of any spiritual practice which is knowingly and willfully harming people. So, rest assured I will not participate in your forum, which evidently does not tolerate or encourage any dissent or rational argument. Further correspondence in this matter will be tantamount to you harassing me. And, In future if you have anything to write or debate with me, kindly do it publicly and not through these bullying tactics in private emails.
best wishes and good luck |