> Whilst it would be a refreshing change for me and
> Scott to actually agree about anything :) , I
> would just make the point that it's not a case of
> him agreeing with me: it's a case of a statement
> having been made by him, and me subsequently
> seeking confirmation of that statement - not from
> him (as, sadly, he is not here at the moment), but
> from you, as you are obviously the best qualified
> person to do so in this context.
> < snip - detailed technical arguments >
> I'm not qualified to discuss or refute any of your
> technical points, I'm afraid. My point was that
> potential readers of GPH, however, would probably
> be engaging in such discussion during the months
> to come. And I'm sure they will also engage in
> consideration of, and discussion about, the other
> evidence for Scott's theories.
My point is that I am not here to publish and appease a readership.
I am here totally out of self interest.
My aim is to collect information through discussion.
I have no interest in swaying opinion one way or the other.
I neither agree nor disagree with Scott's hypothesis. I take him at face value.
I admire that he has the courage to publish his ideas.
I also celebrate his freedom to publish his ideas. Paramount.
I respect those that challenge his ideas in a constructive and professional manner.