Artemis,
WOW...although you now have actually answered my original question regarding Kent, you have made some significant assumptions about what I think and how I prescribe...Dr Leela understood what my questions were about...the most difficult thing about homeopathy is trying to understand the in fighting that lacks all the qualities we need as homeopaths, mainly objectivity as an unpredjudiced observer...

As far as quoting the Organon...this is the place most similiar to religion in homeopathy...quotes taken out of context or even just fighting over interpetation...also,my thought is, if one can't say it in his own language, one often doesn't have a true understanding of the information...reference to an aphorism is great, we all have our own Organon...

By the way, Boenninghausen has been a significant influence in my education...I pointed no fingers, you made assumptions...

I titled this thread as I did knowing what it would likely bring...but my desire was to understand the reason for the predjudice (and I DO have my own) there is between homeopaths about their methods of coming to the similimum and therefore creating the same result (cure) regardless of their method... I personally think methods are chosen based on ones type of thinking...some people are more intellectual in their thinking, and others are more conceptual....what difference does it make as long as one is taking their patients to cure? I also have a suspicion that some of the 'Organon thumpers' don't actually prescribe and live in a theoretical world...there is no better teacher than practical application...meaning one actually sees their patient and the result of their prescription, and the next time one reads the Organon a new and deeper understanding based on experience emerges.
Artemis, just to be clear...the thoughts in this paragraph are GENERAL, not directed at you or anyone specifically... Denise