User talk:Mfc10

Hello

I am new here, I am concerned that the page Human Design System, or the more recent usage would be better, Human Design, was deleted by a series of misunderstandings and errors.

I believe you raised some specific questions? Specifically genetic imprinting, and the probabilities of the bodygraph chart being random or accurate.

I have spent the past 7 years quite recklessly and independently testing Human Design, I would prefer that this debate does not become a personal attack on my own faults, as you understand, I am unusual in choosing to do that, and somewhat unpopular in the sheep community all bleating in unison without thinking what it really means.

I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss calmly and fairly why the topic MUST be on wikipedia, in fact, the serious questions raised by this "system", for want of a better word, cannot be adequately debated by those with a vested interest because they are licensed in some way, and it is way past time to pick out those elements which CAN be empirically tested, and to note the particular way of empirical testing and how that is not a familiar way because of the logic and mathematics involved, in my opinion at least.

If not wikipedia, WHERE on earth can such a topic be independently assessed at all?

I hope that I have correctly found the person who originally posted and that this request is appropriately worded for the purpose. I am not particularly aware of the genetic aspect, it seems a distraction to disqualify the whole article on a detail that certain professionals only can debate.

For me the genetic aspect is an unverifiable assertion to be taken as a matter of faith, or not, but that does not change the validity of the topic as a whole for wikipedia.

Thank you, do I put four tildes now?

Mikemahalo (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)