>The reason it seems to you that I "haven't read beyond this newgroup
> and found the arguments within the discipline" is because I am
>saying things you are probably unfamiliar with.
While I'm sure there are things that I am unfamiliar with, and I look
forward to hearing more of your thoughts, the reason I said the
statement above was because of your comment below:
SL: "I don't think that anyone recently arguing here against an
Indian origin on this list has mentioned horses. I guess you're
talking about press releases, Amazon breasts and the Great Flood and
Atlantis-type acceptance."
You may not agree with Witzel et al. but to lump them with Atlantis,
etc. is inappropriate. So based on that and other statements you
made, I concluded that you were not aware of the centrality of horses
to the debate among Indologists, at least; and thus you had not read
the Indological literature.
I'll reply to the rest of your post later.
Would it be too much to ask for you to simply state your ideas and
evidence without the inflammatory rhetoric?