* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * * As I noted in a previous post, the author's use of the phrase "harsh revisions of phony history" is evidence not only of bias, but also of unprofessional scholarship, specifically: Failure to submit his work for peer review and proper editing. I therefore judge String's accusation as reasonable, and your objection is overruled. I do not find that accusation in String's post. Please be careful to quote people accurately during an argument. His response appears to indicate that he understands your arguments. If you disagree, please explain your objection in a little more detail, since your own statement is not directed at anything specific in his post. I see no failure in String's remarks. As for "groundbreaking ideas," so far I see no evidence that Ranganath is an accomplished scholar of linguistic science. His haphazard combination of five languages in two different families into one group in order to bolster his rhetoric is an example of very poor work that borders on intellectual dishonesty. I would have to read further into this book in order to draw a fair conclusion, but based upon two instances of unscientific and unscholarly rhetoric in such a short exerpt from it, I am obligated to consider the possibility that Ranganath's work is crackpottery, rather than groundbreaking science.