<HTML>Sandy J. Perkins wrote:
>
> It would be fair to call me a supporter of good
> science. Look at the names of the scientists involved here.
> Look at the strength of the data. Do you see that kind of
> supporting data for Schoch, Hancock or Dunn? There are posts
> on this message board and on websites for all to read that go
> into detail. Davidovits' website is a remarkable place with
> unique knowledge in all the world. Any intelligent person who
> spends time there can see that. The unique knowledge of
> materials science is only wasted on people who cannot
> appreciate it. Do you know of any good reason Egyptology
> should be at war with materials science?
Supposing that there is such a war. This is of course a question in the `have you stopped beating your wife?' mould.
I notice that you haven't answered my question.
You tell us that you're merely a supporter of good science, when what you were advocating went well beyond that - a whole industrial and social programme, based on Davidovits's technology and supposedly of great potential benefit to the Egyptian economy. To this you add the surreal innuendo that Egyptology is somehow standing in the way of this programme. Do you really imagine it could, if Egypt (with all its problems) was presented with a realistic and convincing proposal?
You've been free in expressing your suspicions, so you won't mind me saying that your style of advocacy arouses mine. Doubtless you can allay them by citing other examples of your disinterested advocacy of good science.</HTML>