As I said, if he didn't mean how I read it, I'll apologize, however, that's what reading his post over the last two days and asking a friend of mine who knows nothing about Egypt, but is an English teach to read it, what her opinion is as well. So I'm asking for simple clarification of his phrasing in order to resolve something that doesn't seem to mesh with the first part of his post.
I'm not even asking in regards to dating, I'm asking this in regards to the fact that the conservation of the Sphinx is something close to my heart and I've been following the progress of conservation since 1990/1991.
Conservation of the Sphinx Project This is one of the articles I had posted in the original thread dealing with this issue that listed all over weathering/erosion factors that were affecting the Sphinx. The top two weathering/erosion factors listed were wind and salt exfoliation. There is no mention of any area not being affected by these factors.
As I said, according to his post, he wrote: "As Schoch and others have noted, salt exfoliation is one of a number of weathering agents affecting the Sphinx and its enclosure walls. I stand corrected and I apologize to all those kind enough to point out my error."
Then he said, "So, in all those G. CDV/Solenhofen/Nixon/Cynnara posts, in all that verbiage, and for all those extensive quoted references couched in impressive-sounding geological terminology, they have managed to evade the central issue. Despite my several acknowledged and regrettable inaccuracies, that central issue was provided by me for them to address. "That western third and rear end is weathered the way it is because of extensive water runoff, and for no other reason whatsoever."
I'm asking for clarification regarding this point as it seems to be contradictory to me. I figure he knows what he meant and he can clarify it for me.