I have succeeded in providing a refutation for every single argument presented by the author. The author is correct in his contention that finding a fault in a single area is not a reflection on the overall scheme. Being that this is a rather complicated topic to cover I would not level any criticism against author's style, although it was at times difficult to sort through his positions. In addition, there were a few errors (translations, facts, etc.) in this book that did not bear on the content. Some of these I corrected in my summary of the author's words, while others I had to leave for sake of understanding the author. I feel that it is important that no issue is made of these irrelevant errors as it would only stand to detract from the author's true failure to present a single compelling argument.

I now turn the cards on the author. Should he wish to vindicate his book or the positions proposed within, he will have to provide answers on every front.

I will choose a random example: If the author were to bring irrefutable proof that the Rebbe, in his lecture, indeed considers the destruction of the Amalekite nation an imperative according to Maimonides (and good luck trying)

-- he would still need to prove the what is written there is more than just a hypothesis for the sake of the discussion in that lecture. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that the Rebbe's interpretation of Maimonides is exclusive. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that Maimonides' ruling is exclusive. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that this is needed, not for confirmation as Moshiach, but even for Moshiach status. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that this is an actual ruling that can be required or disposed of by legal authority rather than merely being a reflection of Maimonides' conception of how these events will unfold. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that the Rebbe did not exterminate the last of the Amalekites. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that a dead man is precluded from returning as Moshiach. If he could prove that, he would still have to prove that the Rebbe died. If he could prove that, he would still have to prove that the Rebbe is not alive anyway. If he could prove that, he would still need to prove that there is a problem with believing that the Rebbe is Moshiach despite all this --

and even when all that is proven, he would still be short of proof that there is a problem equating the Rebbe with God. And this is just one of the scores of refutations detailed here. It will certainly take a thorough and objective effort to contend with this work.

It is my turn now to ask the readers not to accept anything less