ROTFL!
Apparently your objection to generalizing about text one has not read wasn't a matter of principle, but hypocritical convenience.
Don't worry - we already knew that.
ROTFL!
Well, unless they have been "peer reviewed" and published by legitimate scientific journals, I hardly see any reason to read anything you write. Why read an amateur when I have all this other fabulous "professional" material and "peer reviewed" valid and objective scientifically undetatched no axe to grind quality materials?
Call me (or realistically, have someone at Farms contact the heirs to my estate) when Clark/Sorenson get the Tolstoy treatment!!!
Well, had you read my essays, you would see that they are comprised largely of citations from scholars in the field.
So far you've tooted your horn a lot, and crowed about the ability of you, or DCP, to rebut my arguments, but have offered zero substance.
Note that DCP's examples were all examples of theories based on sound scientific principles being later validated by mainstream science.
Well, had you read my essays, you would see that they are comprised largely of citations from scholars in the field.