I only 'say names' about someone when I fully feel they deserve it, based on their history and/or lack of supporting evidence coupled with their insistence about their pet postulates. I'd also like to note that your only example of me 'demanding' an apology was more akin to a "Y'know, that kind of talk gets this sort of thing closed. You may wish to retract it before the swift hammer of justice arrives".
How is it overreacting to ask you to explain how my idea is 'inconsistent', and later 'alterable' (which is a direct criticism of the hypothesis, which you cannot defend as 'just opinion'), then get miffed when you cannot actually explain what it inconsistent/ alterable about it?I never assume your hypothesis has a flaw,i only tell my opinion about your hypothesis but you overreacted about it.
I think it's possible it was a city. It's also possible it was a single edifice. I, however, do not feel there is sufficient evidence to decide what the original purpose of the Deposit was, save that it was an artificial creation.You also think that there used to be a city?