Replies to post #31696 on DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[Easyman51]

frog, you seem to be so much closer to the workings at DnaPrint than a mere layman.

I accept that the original workings were re-tool'd as things progressed, though I wouldn't say "abandoned". I, of course, received my understanding in generalities, understanding them w/ no knowledge in this area whatsoever. That Dr. Shriver interjected his knowledge and worked w/ Dr. Frudakis I know. What I am having problems w/ is why, if Dr. Frudakis was so inferior in understanding, as I interpret your statements, did Dr. Shriver come on board?

I have often wondered what axe you have to grind w/ DnaPrint. You express yourself w/ an understanding that is abnormally bright, yet I am somewhat amazed that someone w/ your obvious qualifications is so adamantly negative about this particular endeavor. It really appears personal.

I know in the past that we have had disengenuous exchanges, for which I am truly sorry for the "barbed" fun I had w/ your screen name. I would not "champion" an individual whom I thought was posturing. Conversly, I have noted a true tone in what you have said. There are many here whose decisions can be influenced. If there is anything you can say that would contribute to our awareness of what "has" occured, please make bold to post this.