User talk:Lshorthurry

The message you left on my discussion page was not really a compliment. No, I'm not Tolly Burkan, nor am I in any way related to him or his institute. And frankly I would strongly dislike to be associated with him in any way. The man is a definitely untrustworthy and anything he says or writes should not, like stated before by someone, be taken at face value. It's unfortunate that this discussion is taking place under the subject header 'Tolly Burkan' but that's how it panned out with prior edits and statements that happened to be there. If it can be moved elsewhere and disassociated from him, no one would be better pleased than I.

However, he has put forth some of the same questions and concerns I hold with regards to this particular wikipedia entry. And although Tolly Burkan's efforts in this are partly aimed at getting to a more complete representation of the practice of firewalking, I doubt that this is without any need for personal aggrandizement or gain.

So the question then remains: why do I hold concern and why do I attempt to change this particular entry by questioning its validity, science and representation? Well, very simply because I care. I have a very personal connection to this practice and a genuine curiosity for life that extends into various scientific avenues as well. I am particularly interested in the recent bridging of science and spirituality through diverse research including micro-biology, quantum physics and other faculties. Through my experience I've come to understand the validity that both have in our western understanding of life and I therefor believe that approaching any one subject from only one angle is doing that subject and consequently our understanding of it a huge disservice.

As to your response to my most recent addition to the talk page in question, I think after more than 5 years of academic education and the almost 14 years of continuous personal study of certain subjects (that have a direct relationship to firewalking) that followed it, I have a pretty good understanding of science and reliable sources. If you would like to clarify your point please do so on my personal page; I'm open to other perspectives but would prefer to side step any discussion that does not directly contribute to a better understanding and representation of the practice of firewalking. Your remark hints in that direction and subtly discredits my previous entry and the points put forward in it and I am not willing to exert any effort along that avenue.

I will continue to probe, critique and ask relevant questions regarding this particular wikipedia article and try to make a valuable contribution to it, if that is at all possible within the present editorial structure.

with regards, Kalçeba 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A simple "no" would have been better than showing your paranoia and agenda. Lshorthurry 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)