Yes it would bolster all our knowledge if we all consistantly studied the Organon, Hahnemann's journals, and the cases of homoeopathy's leading prescribers, as well as our own, to get a more rounded out picture of the vast potential of our healing modality. Instead of simply reacting to key phrases like "speculation" or "literal" or "Hering's Law of Cure" (which incidently everyone knows is not a law but rather an expanded example of Hahnemann's Direction of Cure), or "Swedenborgian influence" we could IMO take the opportunity to listen to what each speaker has to offer. It almost always doesn't perfectly suit our needs. For instance, if your practice is based 80% or higher on Scholten methods and you go to a Herscu seminar looking for new and innovative perceptions on 'themes', you are bound to be disappointed. I repeatedly tried to watch an Andre Saine video presentation of a seminar and couldn't stay awake for more than the first 20 minutes - which is not something I'm proud of and will seek to rectify once the librarian forgets me as the person who kept the videos out well past their return date. Allen walked out on a speech given by Kent because he had to catch a bus and was disgruntled by what Kent had to say, I left a Jeremy Sherr seminar early because his speaking style bored me shitless and it was a long, long day. This is NOT to say that I think his work is lacking. Please folks, let's give each other and ourselves a bit of breathing space to investigate what is on offer.