After all, if I am to react to the man rather than the ideas, I could be quite scathing about Steve Shaw's totally erroneous assessment of Pete's real life character.

I don't give a stuff about pete's "real-life character." I'm perfectly prepared to accept that he's a personable sort of chap when it comes to his troubadour exploits. But he talks shit here. That's what I concentrate on, Don. What are you actually on about?

He has managed to come to the wrong conclusion in almost every respect, due to a complete ignorance of the subject, a pretty damning indictment of one who portrays himself as a scientist.

Ignorance of what subject? And what's this "portrays himself" shite, Don? Would you like me to send you my certificates?

I have known Pete personally for several years and I rather resent my comments based on knowledge being dismissed as "second hand opinion" by someone who is drawing his opinion out of thin air.

Well you've lost me there. Are you still talking about me or what??? Who said that about you, Don? Would you like me to punch them on the nose for you?

Pete may well be living in cloud cuckoo land, but he has at least learned good manners.

Well, Don, if you think that dropping shite on the whole of science and on every scientist, refusing to listen to a single scientific idea, and feigning ignorance is good manners, I can't help thinking that you've been deluded. Charm is no substitute for integrity and honesty, qualities that pete has yet to demonstrate on this forum, if not in, er, real life.