I know I said I was going to stay out of this, but I can't let this go
by:
Ian wrote:
> >This is an important
> >area of scholarly research,
>
> Unfortunately Peter, this is your wishful thinking. The man has manipulated
> the information for a pacified audience. This is for me an unavoidable
> conclusion, seeing the evidence available.
This is baloney, Ian. You haven't seen the evidence available
because you have consistently refused to read it.
Either he has simply missed it
> or he has wilfully avoided it in his presentation. I doubt that he missed
> it. He seems to have wilfully manipulated the contribution of Kenneth
> Kitchen. I think it is clear he is a fraud.
No, Ian, you're the fraud. You continue to whine about things that
you refuse to investigate. As I recall, it was just such attitudes and
actions that got you removed from another list a while back.
Perhaps instead of pontificating, you should actually go READ THE
BOOK and get a clue about the evidence that is actually presented
therein.
We now return me to my regularly scheduled lurking...