Originally Posted by Jabba
Or, as we've discovered is quite likely, your trusted-but-untrustworthy authors Marino and Prior overstated their case. Will you therefore drop the point and move on? Will you finally present some justification for relying so heavily on such patently shoddy scholarship?
If you want people to consider "the claims of others," you need to present evidence that the claims are worth considering. That means more than simply presenting what your sole source represents them as saying. And broadening the search area with no justification to do so is just the same handwaving nonsense Marino and Prior did to suggest that the features noted by Raes in one place must translate to late patches in a different place. That's not proof. It's just wishful thinking.