> I see that "an email" becomes "several emails"
> from "an Egyptologist friend."
> However, Scott's readers (presumably, readers of
> The Great Pyramid Hoax) are welcome to go
> to Glasgow and look at the email (or emails)
Presumably we are to understand “email” in “I have the email here for anyone to inspect” as a mass noun, otherwise he would be inconsistently slipping back to its being an email (singular).
Now which undoubtedly trustworthy person located not so far from Scott could go and do this on our behalf?
> Meanwhile, in the same way that "one email" became
> "several emails," one "Egyptologist friend"
> appears to have since become more than one
It certainly seems to be something of a segue—and it’s not only numbers have been magically transformed. It seems the legibility of the journal has been also.
> The original Egyptologist is apparently "well
> published." But Scott does not indicate the area
> in which they published, and nor does he indicate
> any grounds for the Egyptologist's apparent
> rejection of the study by Roth (Scott's own
> reading of Roth being rather confused).
We are offered no criterion or argument whatsoever. We are given dogma and appeal to authority, of a peculiarly vicious kind: anonymous authority and what people “really” believe, regardless of what they say.
We are offered no serious evidence of competence. Barbara Cartland was “well published”. More indicative would be his anonymous friend’s highest qualification and surprise, surprise, he ducked out of answering the question on that.
> If Scott was so certain that the publication of
> Hoax would spell the end of Egyptian
> archaeology as we know it, why would he need to
> disseminate statements that, on the most
> charitable reading, can be interpreted only as
> indefinite and equivocal?
Issuing them while making the issue as much as he has done one of personal honesty and trust could tax our charity.