One thing I learnt long ago is to refuse pompous and presumptuous instructions from the likes of you.
If you want to know what I wrote, read it.
If you need help with reading, try your local FE college.
If you need help with comprehension, try gaining elementary literacy in the canons of rationality.
Stop using morality as a smokescreen for argumentative cheating. The morally literate among us find it distasteful.
Seeing as how you’re such a big fan of my old posts (going back twenty years, yet!), I’ll give you some tips. When I played the this game with the late Mr Alford, I wasn’t just hectoring him to repeat things he’d already said.
The questions I asked him were these:
(1) Why didn't you consult Vyse’s book?
(2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?
(3) Why didn’t you trace the diary?
All requests for fresh information, relevant to a critique of his method — and funnily enough, some of these questions are ones you should answer.
Why, for example, did you rely on Sitchin’s claims about Allen and Humphries Brewer, without making (until goaded into doing so) any attempt to check them?
Why, for example, did you not (until goaded into doing so) consult Vyse’s book on the accusations made against Vyse and Campbell? (You were happy to rely on his statements about Nayler, when you imagined they suited you.)
What you’ve produced, Creighton, is a tedious trail of intellectual delinquency.
Just pointing it out.