Notice that when Hillenbrand says the picture is of Muhammad forbidding intercalation the keep brigade call no sources necessary but when he says the art is sectarian the call changes to cite sources to prove it Isn t it obvious that they have an agenda on which fair discussion doesn t figure I can t fault Hillenbrand s reasoning on the sectarianism though I can fault him however on his claim that I can t get inside the book but the word Nasi only appears on page 330 in the following text I would suggest that the closing party allows the full thirty days to run to give AstroLynx the opportunity to fail to come up with quotes from the other experts who he claims support him Selective use of sources can then be taken into account in arriving at a decision 87 81 147 76