Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> I think you should use 1/10 of the time you spend explaining that you did
> not want to offend anyone on actual digging up the science. Your opinion on
> homeopathy is childish at best. You have not "nailed" anything, its an
> illusion on you part.

I am not one to appologize normally for simply speaking my mind, and I
am actually sorry I tried to. There is no science at hand here, you
state so in your quote "I did not call it 'scientific discovery'
because its a different test." It is a basic theory with little to no
science involved at all. I managed to read betwen the lines and figure
out your ties to homeopathy without it even being mentioned directly,
yeah, I nailed that. It was quite apparent.

> For you, who has done nothing in any science, to accuse a giant like Peter
> Farley who considered to be one of the fathers of the whole genetic
> revolution of our times of "cashing in" on anything is just a demonstration
> that you cannot be taken seriously.

If we are speaking about the same Peter Farley (of Peter Farley, Where
Were You Before the Tree of Life?) Then I unappologetically will state
he is a kook, a whack job, and so far removed from a great mind of our
time that it would place him out with the aliens he so believes in. I
have spent a large amount of my life in studies of true great thinkers
from all eras, and as humbly as possible consider myself a very
intelligent individual. I graduated #1 in my college class, hold
national awards, have a mensa level IQ, a member of four national
honor's societies, and two degrees of my own.

I really have no more time for this and we are far removed from tea, if
you would like to discuss any of this further, please email me and I
would be glad to. If there is anything I am sorry for, it is ever
getting involved in this thread.

Good night,
- Dominic