Absolutely no mocking of David Rohl intended. Simply repeating what R. Fusinak said regarding Rohl's credentials.
Leaving David Rohl's experience in matters Egyptological to one side for the moment, my purpose was to highlight the fact that a near miss on a PhD does not give anyone, Rohl included, any more credence qualification-wise, than many members of this board, so why bring it up? I think that it was very unfair of R. Fusinak to bring David Rohl into the debate without providing a solid reference. It seems that this is a case of name-dropping to gain some credibility for R. Fusinak's dismissal of another poster who was earnestly inquiring about a relief which has certain ambiguities. That is my "spat."
So far, except for yourself and Frank, most posters have only said what the "bulb" isn't. Not what it is. If David Rohl has something persuasive to add to the debate, it would be most welcome, and that is what I have endeavoured to achieve.