> And Moreten, its ironic that the other half of the stanza which
> you wrongly accuse Scott of ignoring here, is actually one of
> the focal points that Scott addresses in the book, and he has
> shown it to be inconclusive - especially within the context to
> which you apply it to support the tomb theory.
Wrongly? He quoted half a stanza - like it or not.
Accuse? I did no such thing. I found it odd that he used half a stanza to support your theory when the other half clearly contradicts it. Hence my relevant question on what you consider to be an acceptable methology when evidence is found and presented.
Inconclusive? The AE said what they said - no matter what spin you apply to it.
> If I know Scott
> he probably purposely ignored it so that someone would take the
Are you serious?