- Posts: 2
- Joined: 21 Nov 2011
To ex-l and Allies
Having made my position clear twice, I have no intention of answering any of your questions, as I am not accountable to you - and where I am accountable my position is very clear.
A dialogue can only take place where there is an open mind on both sides, where neither is trapped in their opinion. Long before I made my point of view known, it was clear that that this was not such an environment as I had been hung, drawn and quartered by you and your allies in this court with my position never being sought. Furthermore this character assassination had taken place over many months. If anyone had really been interested in the truth, before such damning comments had been made a dialogue with me would have been sought – as was suggested by one of the commentators who spoke about his/her experience being at odds with yours. Now that I’ve dared to make my position clear, all of a sudden you want a dialogue! This is not how healthy communication works, condemning someone first and asking questions later!
As for your selective referencing of things on our site, this is further evidence of your ignorance of what Reach is about. We are not endorsing anyone or anything. We are putting forward information and philosophies we believe have some relevance and are leaving people to make up their own minds. If you were familiar with our site and our work you’d be aware of this because our agenda is not hidden. So citing particular individuals like Dr. Emoto (who by the way I haven’t given him his title) does not in any way discredit our position because thankfully individuals using the site can decide for themselves what fits and what doesn’t ... clearly a philosophy you don’t subscribe to.
Please note if you insist on maintaining this debate I will not be pulled into a dialogue with you for the reasons I’ve already given, so don’t waste your time addressing things to me. But as I said, if slanderous and defamatory remarks continue then despite your legal reference I will do what I need to, to protect Reach’s good name. Thank you for the legal advice but given that my best interests have not been considered throughout I will be taking the advice I need from a lawyer.
Easton Hamilton
Having made my position clear twice, I have no intention of answering any of your questions, as I am not accountable to you - and where I am accountable my position is very clear.
A dialogue can only take place where there is an open mind on both sides, where neither is trapped in their opinion. Long before I made my point of view known, it was clear that that this was not such an environment as I had been hung, drawn and quartered by you and your allies in this court with my position never being sought. Furthermore this character assassination had taken place over many months. If anyone had really been interested in the truth, before such damning comments had been made a dialogue with me would have been sought – as was suggested by one of the commentators who spoke about his/her experience being at odds with yours. Now that I’ve dared to make my position clear, all of a sudden you want a dialogue! This is not how healthy communication works, condemning someone first and asking questions later!
As for your selective referencing of things on our site, this is further evidence of your ignorance of what Reach is about. We are not endorsing anyone or anything. We are putting forward information and philosophies we believe have some relevance and are leaving people to make up their own minds. If you were familiar with our site and our work you’d be aware of this because our agenda is not hidden. So citing particular individuals like Dr. Emoto (who by the way I haven’t given him his title) does not in any way discredit our position because thankfully individuals using the site can decide for themselves what fits and what doesn’t ... clearly a philosophy you don’t subscribe to.
Please note if you insist on maintaining this debate I will not be pulled into a dialogue with you for the reasons I’ve already given, so don’t waste your time addressing things to me. But as I said, if slanderous and defamatory remarks continue then despite your legal reference I will do what I need to, to protect Reach’s good name. Thank you for the legal advice but given that my best interests have not been considered throughout I will be taking the advice I need from a lawyer.
Easton Hamilton