I am very glad that I heard back from Doug Mesner. I have cut and pasted his response below. I think his response was more cordial then I expected it to be. That may have been because of my bias of feeling I had to be on the defense because of my research into the the debunking of SRA. It was a nice surprise and I learned more about why he is skeptical of SRA. He states a concern that there will be some within the "SRA echo chamber" that will not want me to talk to him. In an email to him I have explained that I have worked very hard in my life to get to the place I am. That I will not ever be controlled by any one or any thing again and that I will make decisions that affect my life. This is a touchy subject for me. Part of my survival and moving forward in my life was to learn to take control of my life and not allow anyone to control me ever again. This has been to the determent of relationships because of how touchy I am on this subject and because it is a trigger for my PTSD.
I did respond to his response to my post. I didn't cut and paste my response here because it goes into graphic detail of one of the things that happened to me and this can be a trigger for some. I felt I had to give graphic detail in order to answer his concern over whether or not I survived his definition of RA. To be honest I went on a tangent of sorts. I also answered a response from someone named Gaiain Guy. His response to my post on Doug Mesner's site was of the tone I was expecting from someone who is more interested in debunking then being skeptical. I felt he had a very argumentative tone to his response and came across at times very condescending. Something I despise in people. Another of my triggers. I don't plan on interacting with people in an argumentative condescending way. I would like to have a mature, honest, intelligent, open dialog with people. I have made my agenda known to him. I explained in my response to him that my agenda is to be taken seriously about what I have survived. Gaiain guy's response is why I posted the article from
Donald Michael Kraig at http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2011/05/true-skepticism-vs-debunking/. I couldn't believe it when I came across his article while I was doing research into true skepticism vs debunking.
I decided to do some research into what Gaiain could mean and found this definition on http://www.crosscurrents.org/Gaia.htm. Gaia hypothesis,
succinctly, suggests that the Earth is a self-regulating, self-sustaining entity, which
continually adjusts its environment in order to support life. Though a scientific theory,
the Gaia hypothesis has, since its initial articulation in 1969, sparked a swirl of
religious, New Age, and philosophical reflection, and challenged certain long-held
assumptions about evolution, the importance of the human in determining environmental
change, and the relationship between life and the environment. Interesting, I learn something knew every day have a great evening blessings, Rosie