If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.

They've been compared and nothing of note was found. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34494938

That work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.

What new evidence.

It is called TFA, around here. I have copied the link for your convenience.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sensational-runest...

Did you mean to reply to somone else? I have not objected to comparing anything.

Comparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them.

You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.

> deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here

You seem to be very upset about something, but it is not really clear what.

“Deniers” is usually used about people who deny evidence, but this does not seem to be the case here.