The original reference to the book was presumably on topic. My indication that the book was unreliable because of its treatment of Egyptian history is therefore also on topic. Discussion of the dismal handling of Egyptian history in Moller's book is, however, not on topic as I said.
What do you mean, "original reference to the book?" I count only one reference to the book in this thread. The reference is concerning the Ur/Urs. Can you refute and show there is indeed, only one Ur? Moller's claims as set forth by Marcos appears to have some merit. I don't know. I'm asking for your reasons for implicating them as bogus.
™ Version 4.2
