I didn't write that you are misleading me, i actually emphasized that i am not accusing you for not uploading more pages. I also wrote that i cannot evaluate the credibility of his views without studying how he comes to such a conclusion. With all that said, Robert Drews actually writes in the last page, "The linguistic possibilities and impossibilities are far beyond my ability to see, and i must hope that an Indo-Europeanist will explore them.". I believe you take his word very seriously even though he is not an Indo-Europeanist and he says so. What you also excluded from your message is that Robert Drews places the homeland of PIE in the Armenian highlands, hence why he might be trying to explain the expansion of Graeco-Phrygian from southern Caucasus by giving too much value in what were probably trade relations between Aegean-Caucasus, i presume. Do you agree with that as well, namely for PIE to have originated from Armenia? Do you also agree with his view that Graeco-Phrygian has Indo-Iranian roots, because that is quite a stretch from a linguistic point of view. It is different to claim that the two groups are related, and different to claim origin of the former from the latter. For example, Graeco-Phrygian was centum, Indo-Iranian was satem. If i understand correctly, he also writes that Indo-Iranian originated somewhere within the modern region of Kurdistan, namely below Aras/Araxes river and upper Tigris river. You agree with that as well? Last, he also seems to disregard analysis of Greek dialects which are crucial for answering the origin of the Greeks (1600 BCE is too late for proto-Greek). By the way, does he mention any of the archaeological evidence that i shared in the previous post anywhere in his book? Because i personally do mention archaeological similarities between south Caucasus and the Aegean, which shows i am not ignorant of them. In the end, it appears Drews doesn't take a holistic approach to the question, which can easily derail you into all kinds of false conclusions. Anyway, you may believe what you want in the end. Just like with the case of Hammond and his tumuli analysis of Greece which is totally outdated bearing in mind that quite many examples of tumuli use exist in Greece after 1400 BCE.