Dear David, Nice to hear from you again. Could you please share with the list what your experiences were with the field broadcasters as it will help to hear from people such as Lloyd and you in Australia who have used their field broadcasters for a while. Sincere regards James ----- Original Message ----- From: "D & S Chamberlain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Radionics (Drought update)
> I agree with all that has been said about the dangers, BUT if we untrained > suckers don't do it who will? Do we all sit back and await the guru's > arrival? There appears to be the perception that you can just bung in a pipe > and get rid of all your weeds and other problems, a silver bullet approach. > This has not been my experience. > > Dr. Elaine Ingham will be in Aust and NZ in March, those who would like to > attend her seminars should go to her WebPages. > David C > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lloyd Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2002 1:52 PM > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Radionics (Drought update) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gil Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:36 AM > > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Radionics Accreditation > > Dear Gil and list -- My remarks here are to be taken as only applying to > > experimental use of radionics in agriculture > > Gil wrote > > > Hi! Jane, Hugh and the List. > > > I agree with your concerns about some one driving a Cosmic Pipe or other > > > Radionic Device and putting out energy other than that which is desired. > > > > Me too. but I have a serious problem in that I am one of the un-trained > > un-accredited people who has come to this with only my integrity and good > > intent (And common sense) > > We also need to look at what is the alternative - In my case (I can > already > > hear the gasps of horror ) the alternative would have been a continuation > > of chemical farming in some form, but the use of potentised remedies in > > field broadcasters or instruments of similar ilk will be the most valuable > > tool (of many) that we use to get us out of it. And I'm sorry folks but I > > refuse to hand my farm over to the banks and chemical companies because of > > some idealistic system that would not deliver a satisfactory result in my > > situation. > > > > Gil again > > > This is an area in which I differ from Hugh. I do not think that devices > > > like his Field Broadcaster should be in the public domain. I think it > > > requires specialist knowledge along with a high degree of > responsibility > > for the > > > resulting broadcast. > > > > My background says that I should argue with Gil but I find it very > difficult > > to disagree. A wise fellow once told me to remember that the potential to > do > > good (with any instrument or machine) will always be about equal to the > > potential to do damage - thus it requires a higher level of intellect and > > ability to operate a bulldozer than a shovel. > > If we see Gil's emphasis on training as an opportunity for those already > > practicing radionics to quietly exclude unsuitable people before they > > advance far enough to do real harm then I agree. However I feel that this > > process is already in place - I got good guidance, and a well timed dose > of > > cautionary advice from Hugh Lovel when I started with the field > broadcaster. > > And have had similar help and guidance from others - including a couple of > > magic days at James and Barbara Hedley's place recently. > > As far as the weekend specials go (there is another one on in South > > Australia soon I hear) they are a training excercise for the organisers > but > > the attrition rate is extraordinarily high - there are 2 dial analysers > > sitting in the bottom of wardrobes all over the place - if these guys can > > afford to waste $3000 to $7000 in such a manner then so be it - The > problem > > that I have with radionics is the product sellers. This is a serious and > > very dangerous situation - how on earth can an operator (regardless of > his > > inherent honesty) get a proper and beneficial analysis result when the > whole > > purpose and INTENT of sitting down at the instrument was to increase his > > sales of brand X supersoup or whatever - after all there's a payment due > on > > the new mercedes 4 wheel drive next week and the bank needs a bit of a top > > up. How do you stop this with regulation or accreditation?? > > I would like to hear more from other list members on this as I can see the > > sense in both Gil's and Hugh's argument but sittin' on the fence is a > > dangerous policy long term. > > Cheers all > > Lloyd Charlers > > > > > >
