"
As I say, you can't read English closely and this generates numerous misprisions in your understanding both of sources and what others say.
A pointer, one of many possible ones, on how not to construe elementary English.
I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians.
(a)does not allow you to infer, and repeatedly say, that the meaning is: Nishadani clearly stated that are not familiar with population genetics, nor they believe in that science.'
Where in that sentence do I state that I am unfamiliar with population genetics, and disbelieve that discipline? I am saying nothing about genetics: I am stating my scepticism about geneticists stepping outside their discipline to make arguments about another discipline, namely historiography. Peer-reviewed geneticists have RS credibility as geneticists, not historians, as peer-reviewed historians have RS competence as historians, not geneticists. Sometimes you have dual competence, as with C.D. Darlington, or Jits van Straten, but the geneticists you cite, if you check the historical books in their bibliographies, use dated or unreliable sources for their history, and make frequent errors, as many reviews have shown.
(b)'You protest my writing:'What geneticists define as 'Jewishness' in Europe relates to male founder genes' and call me a racist who insults Jews.
Here you fail to understand what geneticists define as 'Jewishness'. I am not using that language, the view is not therefore mine. If you have a problem with this take it up with Harry Ostrer, whose work you keep citing, or with experienced science reporters who report him saying that markers on the DNA reveal ""a biological basis for Jewishness,""..
Reflect on this. You keep screwing up the obvious meaning of sentences. It's a reportable offence to do this when one of the consequences of your failure to understand my English is that you imdulge in wildly false accusations that a reasonable editor, making reasonable remarks, is an antisemite.   

"