Where's the Beef?

Archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins has suggested in his posts that he's commented in favor of the Egyptian military dictatorship's request that its friends at U.S. Customs and the U.S. State Department Cultural Heritage Center clamp down on collectors, particularly of the "coiney kind."  But though he's claimed that coin collectors are "duplicitous," his own comments are not to be seen on the regulations.gov website, suggesting that he sent them in via mail to avoid scrutiny.

My own comments are easily accessible here.  If Elkins is going to critique others' views of the MOU, he should also put his comments to the Egyptian MOU on the web for all to see.

Addendum (5/26):  Rather than posting what he's written to CPAC, archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins has instead again gone on the attack, misrepresenting CPO's comment that suggested if he did not send in his own comments to CPAC via mail,  the only other likely possibility was that he ghost-wrote Jane Evans' comments.   And let's not forget that both his blog post about coin collectors being "duplicitous" and her letter shared some technical errors.  Well, if Elkins didn't ghost write the letter, fine.  But then where is his own letter to CPAC?  If Elkins wants to be taken seriously as a numismatist, he should allow his letter to be subject to public scrutiny.  And if Elkins is going to claim others are being "duplicitous" based on their own published comments to CPAC, the decent thing to do would seem to be for Elkins to release his own words to CPAC for all to see.  In that regard, CPO does not question Elkins' (or anyone else's) rights to express their views to CPAC, just his unwillingness to let others assess for themselves their accuracy.