After Edzard followed me, I started writing him an email, but when he blocked me without ever contacting me, or me him, I had to alter the end of my message. Since he most likely won't ever reply to me now, I thought it good to post it here:
"Dear Edzard
I read with great interest your latest blog post "my double-life as a homeopath" and I felt compelled to write to you, because the homeopaths' hostile reaction to you, their attempt to dismiss you by smearing you, your credentials and your work in order to detract from what you were trying to say is exactly what a different group did to my family, embracing us at first and then casting us aside, even going as far as hoping that our Human Rights mediation would fail, despite the fact that they also keep saying that exposing the movement they're so vocally against is crucial.
Now that we've succeeded, even made the front page of a national paper and appeared on prime time TV, these critics have sided with the group they are supposedly fighting against to belittle what we have done, while telling other journalists that no one can expose that group.
They also tell everyone we contact that we're the ones attacking them, like they have told you, which is why you've now blocked me on Twitter. How can you justify that Edzard? Not that I expect you to respond to me. I've found your group is extremely keen to band together and protect one another no matter what, evidence be damned.
Remind you of something? Looks for all the world that you've left one cult to join another.
Here is but a very short sample to illustrate what I mean: http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/NZ-Human-Rights.html
If you are evidence based as you claim to be, I'll happily discuss this with you, but since you've blocked me so suddenly without even talking to me, I'm not holding my breath. So much for evidence-based skepticism, eh?
Maybe if skepticism is diluted it'll get stronger. What do you think?"
After Edzard followed me, I started writing him an email, but when he blocked me without ever contacting me, or me him, I had to alter the end of my message. Since he most likely won't ever reply to me now, I thought it good to post it here:
ReplyDelete"Dear Edzard
I read with great interest your latest blog post "my double-life as a homeopath" and I felt compelled to write to you, because the homeopaths' hostile reaction to you, their attempt to dismiss you by smearing you, your credentials and your work in order to detract from what you were trying to say is exactly what a different group did to my family, embracing us at first and then casting us aside, even going as far as hoping that our Human Rights mediation would fail, despite the fact that they also keep saying that exposing the movement they're so vocally against is crucial.
Now that we've succeeded, even made the front page of a national paper and appeared on prime time TV, these critics have sided with the group they are supposedly fighting against to belittle what we have done, while telling other journalists that no one can expose that group.
They also tell everyone we contact that we're the ones attacking them, like they have told you, which is why you've now blocked me on Twitter. How can you justify that Edzard? Not that I expect you to respond to me. I've found your group is extremely keen to band together and protect one another no matter what, evidence be damned.
Remind you of something? Looks for all the world that you've left one cult to join another.
Here is but a very short sample to illustrate what I mean: http://www.steinermentary.com/SM/NZ-Human-Rights.html
If you are evidence based as you claim to be, I'll happily discuss this with you, but since you've blocked me so suddenly without even talking to me, I'm not holding my breath. So much for evidence-based skepticism, eh?
Maybe if skepticism is diluted it'll get stronger. What do you think?"