David,
I'm not home at present but I'm only asking questions.
Not so Mike. You were trying to imply that I had treated the source material disingenuously. You even had the nerve to compare my essay to the kind of shenanigans that TEPaul so often has pulled here.
I've had it with you repeatedly implying that I have done anything underhanded. You have been singing this same bullshit song since before my essay came out, and it has been without basis the whole time. Grow up Mike, and face the facts. And quit blaming your own inabilities, failings, errors, gullibility and disingenuous interpretations on me.
Doesn't your essay presently include info found by Joe Bausch subsequent to your initial publication of your essay or am I mistaken?
No, it does not. You obviously are just making up stupid and nonsensical garbage yet again.
In answer to your repeated response "why would I?", I would think an objective analysis or at least one trusting the readwr with all of the information would certainly dictate inclusion of all relevant information, even if it couldn't easily be expained such as the discrepancies in acreage of a to-scale Land Plan, particularly aas regards the triangle that you used as physical evidence to convince your readers while apparently knowing it was only about 75 pct as wide as Francis indicatwd he swapped for and almost twice as long.
I would think those points were very relevant to the fact-finding.
My essay was MY analysis, do your own if you don't like it. (Yeah right.)