Merrell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent! I expected nothing less.
>
> I daresay, then, that Mr. Creighton will be
> providing readers of GPH with further relevant
> details on what makes you an expert (or
> specialist) in this field; what special qualities
> and achievements set you apart from other Art and
> Design graduates; what particularly qualifies you
> to make pronouncements about the quarrymarks in
> Campbell's Chamber; and, in short, what there is
> about your expert opinions that will cause readers
> to change their minds about the origin of those
> markings.

Putting the shoe on the other foot :

Quote
Giza the Truth (Lawton & Ogilvie-Herald) Virgin Books, 2000 p.101:
Linguistic and interpretation issues. Turning to the linguistic as opposed to practical issues, these have been thoroughly refuted by a British researcher, Martin Stower on his internet web site.

Stower is a linguist?
What credentials does Stower have making his opinion believable?
So far as I know he has no training, education, or field experience that would qualify him on "Linguistic and interpretation issues". No training in hieroglyphs or languages. How does one become an official "researcher"? I should like to take this exam.

Remember, we can not give credit to internet browsing, or stalking. Having a website does not make one an expert. If it does, I will soon have one.

Who has the double standard here Merrell?