<HTML>Sandy j. Perkins wrote:
>
> I would say you should write to Morris with this
> question rather than wondering about it.
Morris has posted here. I'm sure she's quite capable of answering the question here.
What's rather less clear is why you responded to the question.
> Why would she write this paragraph if she is trying to
> conceal the denial of samples, etc? She could have just left
> it out altogether.
You display a curious tendency to `slip' what's been said. Of course she didn't conceal the denial of samples. What she concealed was who denied them. Instead of stating frankly and openly who it was, she chose to cast suspicion on `Egyptology' in general.
The body empowered to permit or forbid sampling of the pyramid stone is the Supreme Council of Antiquities, a department of the government of a sovereign nation - not at all the same as `Egyptology'. The SCA is charged (among other things) with preservation of the monuments. They obviously can't grant every request which comes along.
So, for the third time (for anyone willing and able to answer): who exactly did Zeller apply to for samples?
Was it the SCA? Did he make a formal, documented application?
> After all, there is Zeller's finding.
> which is what's important:
Then why the added debating ploy?
[. . .]
> Of course he or they are going to appeal for more samples
> upon finding this result. It's logical. They would need many
> samples to run different destructive tests. I'm not surprised
> that they were denied.
So why does Morris try to make more of it?
> What do you suspect?
Partiality.
> What ever, you should ask Morris.
As above: if Morris can post here, she can answer here.</HTML>