Logic and fudge

[John Oliver Perry]

K. Elst commenting on "fudge factors" makes a logical leap here which is
apparent even to a casual enjoyer of this debate:
<< Chinese can be written in no less than
 three directions: left-to-right (most mainland-Chinese textbooks),
 right-to-left (still in inscriptions on temple gates and the like) and
 top-down with the lines succeeding right-to-left (classical texts).  The
 Chinese and Harappan scribes alike designed their scripts in such ways for
 other reasons than for the sake of confusing future decipherers; and modern
 decipherers should not be held guilty of manipulations if they rightly or
 wrongly discern that variable pattern in a given ancient script. >>

Chinese and Harappan scribes must have designed their scripts indeed at
different times for different uses, and Elst explains the different uses of
each directionality in Chinese, whereas he makes no such claim for Harappan.
So the parallelism (logic) is incomplete.

As for "fudge factors," yes, they can be employed by over-eager (not closely
self-critical, close to non-scientific?) scholars.  To fudge is not
necessarily to be dishonest. The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College
ed.,  lists:  "--tr. 1. To fake or falsify. 2. To evade (an issue for example
[as Elst above?]); dodge. --intr. 1. To act in an indecisive manner. 2. a. To
go beyond the proper limits of something. b. To act dishonestly; cheat.
[Orig. unknown]"

Note that the order of meanings shifts according to transitive or
intransitive status.

Just clarifying from a position quite outside the debate (with obvious
inclinations, but no fudging).   ATB, John Oliver Perry