Pentcho Valev wrote:
>Athel, I do not know how to reply to your personal attacks.
What personal attacks? I only wanted to remind readers of this group (and
inform those who have joined since last August), that during the period
June-September 1997 there were approximately two messages per day either
from Pentcho or from other people trying to deal with the points he raised
(not to mention a similar abundance of similar exchanges in other news
groups). For him to come back now, after describing his own contributions
to this group in the following words:
>I agree with Pedro Mendes that a lot of rubish has been thrown out of my
>computer (Pentcho Valev in
>http://www.bio.net/hypermail/BTK-MCA/9709/0023.html)
with the claim that there is a lack of interest in discussing thermodynamic
questions takes a lot of nerve.
In that message he continued:
>I do not think that this should continue, so I would like to apologise to
>the group and promise not to contribute any more.
In the present message, he continues:
>Maybe I should only reply to your statement that what I am writing about
>has no biological significance. I think that it, if true, is quite
>significant.
The crucial words are "if true". In any case, Pentcho is "replying" to a
"statement" that I did not make. There was no statement in my message to
the effect that Pentcho's new point had no biological significance, only
that there was nothing *especially* biological about it. Of course it is
true that if classical thermodynamics turns out to be all wrong then this
will have biological implications, but I still think it would be more
useful to get the chemistry right first and worry about the biological
implications afterwards.
Athel
Email: athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
Home page: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/homepage.htm
MCA FAQ: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcafaq.htm
MCA chapter from my book:
http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcai.htm
