Dufference is, crank revisionist, referring to you as a crank revisionist is supportable and documentable.

Your perverse characterization of me as a “bored housewife” can only be an example of a senile delusion, or perhaps some sort of transference, wherein you project your own masculinity problems onto me. Perhaps it is YOUR housewife that is bored, and you don’t dare confront her about it, so instead you label me a ‘bored housewife’ as a means of getting back at her.

Pretty sad, but I can see no other explanation.

I’ve finished my draft of a letter to Cerebellum, in which I am asking how it was that they let malicious false claims make it into print.

Thomas says “Keep talking folks. This is thought provoking stuff.”

Alas, there seems to be nobody here to carry on a decent (scientific) discourse with.

Dr. Gregory used to adopt the stance that until I’d go on peer-reviewed record he would have nothing to say of the Fractal (Recursive) Approach. Now time had come that my advisors permitted me to have published The Principle of Recursive Genome Function , peer-reviewed. Yet, he hasn’t even answered why he’d resort to name-calling while he is meticulous enough to reprimand those addressing him “Mr. Gregory” instead of “Dr. Gregory”…

Some scientists will need time to recover (recur?) from their failing to see that reversal of two dogmas leads to a new phase (predicted to be an avalanche) of recursive algorithms. Once they do, will probably claim (in that order) that 1) it is totally wrong, 2) they themselves have been doing it for ages :-), maybe perhaps 3) Dr. Gregory championed Recursive Genome Function (algorithms and software of mining fractal defects of regulatory sequences).

Meanwhile, distinguished no-names (a.k.a. doppelganger) obviously emotionally disturbed bored housewives with “sad secrets” (search in above) whose declared interest is not recursion but swearing (in this blog, cursing), in their usual confused ways of not knowing if they are coming or going, would go on littering Dr. Gregory’s baby to death with flabbergasting contradictions.

Like claiming “self-promotion” when I point readers to by now a series of New York Times articles (here is the third) that are not about me – though feature IPGS Founder – but the subject matter of formerly junk DNA and the progress towards the science goal of arriving at principles of genome function).

Pellionisz_at_junkdna

Suppression of ‘junk DNA’ research wasn’t mentioned.

Nor were you.

But it is funny – where, exactly, do these folks think that the proteins in the epigenome came from?

Fairy dust?

And if genes are so unimportant, how is it that knockout experiments work?

Well, they don’t really think genes are unimportant, not like the crankier among us, who are more intent on self-promotion than anything else.

You should use Pubmed once in a while Andra – you might find out how many things you’ve been wrong about.

More closely on the subject matter:

Re: “Crankishness”; Taking Science Personally (New York Times, November 10)

Re: “Principle of Genome Function”; Now: The Rest of the Genome (New York Times, November 11)

Pellionisz_at_junkdna.com

I wonder if a class action lawsuit could be brought against people who libellously claim that junk DNA was ignored by researchers for nefarious purposes?