Hans Wrote:
> ""Of the combatants on the one side, the city of
> Athens was reported to have been the leader and to
> have fought out the war; the combatants on the
> other side were commanded by the kings of
> Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island
> greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when
> afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an
> impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from
> hence to any part of the ocean.""
>
> That seems very clear to me. You seem to have gone
> done the common Atlantis believers pathway in
> that: 'everything is correct except for the parts
> I want to change for x reason'.

No my location matches most all of the details of the Account without picking/choosing or bending.
What parts have I changed? What part do you mean of that quoted verse, the "sank by an earthquake" part?

English translations are notoriously inaccurate.
Here are two different translations of the quoted verse to show that the "sinking" is not so clear cut as people assume:
"... afterward sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to the ocean."
Or,
"... subsequently overwhelmed by earthquakes, and is [now] the source of the impenetrable mud which prevents the free passage of those who sail [to the sea beyond]."
(Critias 109a.)
In my chapter on the sinking I also give 3 translations of the other sinking verses section in the Account too, plus 2 post-Plato quotes.
The translations and peoples interpretations are not always right, and just because we might not agree with them doesn't mean we that don't agree with the original language source text.

The only detail of the Account that doesn't literally match is the 9000 years date, and even this is correct but just not literally. The text itself contradicts having Athens 9000 yrs before.

By the same criticism critics are picking in that they ignore all the matches evidences and only focus on one or a few alleged doubts. All the evidences must be considered not just some. If/where it is not possible to have a 100 percent match, the one with the best quality and quantity matches should be acknowledged as the most likely theory.

> " was an island greater in extent than Libya and
> Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake,"

In my chapter on the Size of Atlantis I give numerous evidences from the Account that Atlantis was a large island.
In my chapter on the Sinking I give evidences of quakes at Tiahuanaco.
And in the chapter of the Sinking I say that it is not clear whether the whole large island "sank" or only the royal island capital city sank. (It says the nesos "island" but is not clear which one.) I then give evidences that if it was the whole island that "sank" it must have been Earth crust dislacement or continental shift (and sea slosh) which would both cause quakes and the other things described in the text.
As we said above the other translation says "subsequently overwhelmed by earthquakes", not "sunk by an earthquake". In a sense this might be picking but the evidences support the one we pick and no one has shown that the other translation is more correct translation of the original language text.