For me to accept your studies of the use of misspelled words you would have to retroactively agree to accept my "proof" of connections based (in part) on matching misspelled words.
Do you accept that notion?
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about but if you enlighten me I'd be open to consider it.
What have the overall reactions been from QS and PN7?
Haven't kept up with everything, just looking for a general "ignore, deny, get cagey and defensive", feels like each has to be one of those three.
Back then, QS did respond in this thread somewhat cleverly, by using a lot of the words I mentioned in his post. Apparently it wasn't in this thread though because I can't find it here.
It's also worth mentioning that the connection made back then didn't solely rely on linguistical analysis, it also was based on plenty of other similarities between the two accounts (most of which are explained in the OP).