I corrected Barbelo's mistake in thinking cladking believed they were stinky footed bumpkins.
It's not whether cladking believes that "they" were stinky footed bumpkins. It doesn't matter whether he is being sarcastic or not.
My question was why does he place so much emphasis (as evidenced in a multitude of posts over the years) on:
(a) a word which is grammatically understood (corpse),
and (b) has twisted the meaning of another word (secretion) to fit his critical viewpoint, when other plausible synonyms could be used.
Thirdly, the plural "they" does not appear in Mercer's translation. The Utterance is directed to Unas - singular - but cladking has combined this plethora of faulty logic into a myopic and questionable viewpoint of Dynastic Egypt. As well, he attributes this viewpoint to "Egyptologists". Nowhere in the literature have I found any such assertions.
Cladking has built the "stinky footed bumpkins" paradigm on a folly of his own but is adamant about "author intent."
Surely, as a learned person yourself, you must discern the difference between scholarship and mere opinion.