"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie from removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:m.kirkcaldie-D7F998.17221615042007 from news.sydney.pipenetworks.com...
>I should add, that I used to get snippy with Ken, thinking I had
> something to prove by disagreeing with him, but in the end I realised
> that we were arguing from different principles, and so I decided to
> accept that his views are valid in his frame of reference,
Is creationism "valid"? Is there a life force? Is the wind the breath of
>as I believe
> mine are in my frame of reference, and that he deserves the same respect
> as any other person interested in these questions.
>> I only get angry with people who try to obtain money or power from
> others - and I don't think Ken's in it for the money, he's in it because
> he can't help but be interested in the brain, just like I can't. We
> don't have much of use to add to each other's arguments, but I respect
> his motivation and his honesty. His ideas are not mainstream science,
> but unlike Richard Dawkins I'm fine with others having a dissenting way
> of seeing things!
What about the cold-fusion guys?