dave, My feelings on this subject are very strong. If you read about Hahnemann's life you will see that it was one long evolution of experimentation.
He experimented with all the potencies that were available to him. (Actually Ozzie, according to his wife, Melanie, he used up to the 1M)
He also experimented with remedies that he had succussed himself compared to the other succussion methods of the day.
He experimented with the dry dose and the remedy in medicinal solution.
He was also interested in linking other healing modalities into his work. For example, mineral magnetism, massage, mesmerism, pure water baths, galvanism (I'm not sure yet exactly what that entails). One of his closest friends, who was godparent to one of his kids, influenced him greatly in the area of clairvoyance. As well, he gave good common sense naturopathic advice on diet and lifestyle.
On the suggestion of other homoeopaths he also experimented with combining remedies.
At the end of all of this, a lifelong pursuit, the fruit of all his labours is the 6th edition of the Organon. This is the one in which he is personally satisfied that he has accomplished and perfected his methods.

He encouraged his followers to pursue research.

He only got to use LM's in the last 3 years of his life. Modern day homoeopaths have used them for a lot longer! So in this sense we already have moved beyond his experience.
But if you go outside of the fundamental laws which define classical homoeopathic practice, the law of similars, the single remedy, the mimimum dose, Hering's Laws, and also if you fail to recognize that the remedies have been proved to provide individualiation in healing sickness, then I don't see how it can be 'homoeopathy' anymore. It's another branch of allopathy.

So my main concern is if homoeopathy is misrepresented. I believe that everyone who practises the art because of their own life experiences contributes to and moves homoeopathy forward. It's not a static thing, it can't not evolve.

chrisg