Tischendorf brazenly lied, claiming in 1859 that he saved the ms. from the flames in 1844. Tischendorf actually pulled out intact quires in his theft.
You don't know this.
By your logic, you are a liar if you support the Tischendorf claims.
Your ability to debate this subject is so poor that you keep repeating the same straw man argument - mostly, because YOU are the one wanting desperately to believe this is nothing but a 19th century sexual harassment case of "he said/he said," and it isn't.
This is your tactic of gaslighting to prevent scrutiny of your position.
Of course, your refusal to coherently attempt to answer the basic questions in this thread is pretty much a decisive refutation of your position anyway. NOTHING speaks louder to the known wrongness of the advocate of a wrong position as a refusal to answer BASIC questions.
What is your opinion of the three crosses scriptorium note, pointing out the blunder the scribes had made?
Gee, your very description would tell everyone around that this fact alone means SIMONIDES DIDN'T WRITE IT HIMSELF.
And my opinion and yours doesn't matter.
This is the OJ defense team trying to go with, "Yes, we know our client has no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder (having given no less than 3 completely different versions - you know, like Simonides), we know he has no reasonable answer for how his blood is on the victims and how the victims's blood is in his Bronco. But you see, one of the lab tests showed EDTA on the chemical readout - and since EDTA is found as a preservative in blood tubes, WE CLAIM THIS PROVES the blood was planted by police!"
(Never mind that EDTA is found in detergent, you know, like on socks, and is also found in paint thinner, you know, like on freshly painted gates).
This is the law school dictum being followed:
"If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts
If you have the law on your side, argue the law;
If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side - CONFUSE the jury!"
That's all that's going on here.
The facts are not on Avery's side.
Neither is any meaningful application of logic in line with any law.
So we get irrelevancies designed to confuse.