> The suggestion that mentioning him at all serves
> merely to promote his guff is of course a familiar
> one. It’s a variant on “All publicity is good
> publicity.” I may fairly note that he does not
> take it in that spirit.
> Given better information on the effect he is
> having, I might ignore him. Some, however, are
> inclined to read silence as concession (and he is
> certainly one of them), so I plan to continue
> reminding him that the critics have not gone
Yes anti-scientific and misinformation must always be confronted. In my time as an Archaeologist someone using that title was either a PhD or held a paying position. The term used (70-80's) for someone interested and well informed on archaeology was 'amateur' Archaeologist or 'vocational' for someone with enthusiasm but little formal training, but expertise in specific aspect of the 'job' . By that standard Ori would be an 'Amateur' Egyptologist and Scot a 'Vocational' one. My 5 rupees on the issue.
Oh, Martin finished the first volume - Excellent. I must say it is sad that you had to spend all the time debunking such a trivial subject instead of something of greater value. However, you have correctly taken on the task of countering Scott aberrant views. I was fortunate that Cladking never published anything or I would have felt a need to counter his witless prattle in writing also. Lucky me!