[Pahuanui]

My thought process is quite clear and I can discuss without passing back the insults that come to mind.

That means a lot, coming from someone who not only misattributes the etymology of a particular word to support a historical theory, but also thinks that the science of lingustics doesn't even exist.

Your method of intimidation has been going on a very long time and you have perfected the art.

If pointing out factual evidence to counter fallacious claims is what you consider intimidating, I'm guilty as charged.

[Just mythoughts]

Fact, science is only as good as the mind doing the science.

Fact, "ten tribes were taken captive by the Assrian King and went north over the Caucasus Mountains.

When, and who named the mountian range is not the issue.
Who coined the word "caucasian" does not change who the "ten tribes" were, are and their travels.

Your science of lingustics takes a word "caucasian" and limit the usage by specific date, its coining.

The etymology of the word "caucasian" does not change the historical facts. Rather it is a word a man came up with to classify some with a tape measure. A common term used today to identify a race of people.

Considering that mountain range, is called Caucasus and then the word caucasian comes about to describe a people, not hard to follow footsteps of those who came over the mountains.

You do not own science of lingustics, and have no authority to accuse fallacious claims, when none have been made.

You also do not own history and have no authority to say what is theory and history, no matter what your science of lingustics tells you.

Time to start tearing down the whitewashed walls man has put up.