Maju Maju Maju! First you dismiss the correlation ...

Maju Maju Maju! First you dismiss the correlation I’ve found between music and tone language on the basis of a complete misreading of my musical maps. Then, after I correct you, instead of apologizing and accepting that I could be right after all, you go on to find other objections based on the fact that non-tonal languages are also important in SE Asia.

1. Why should I apologize? If you make "bad" or hard to understand maps is not my fault but, if anybody's, yours. You have not "apologized" either for misreading my words on China (that you insisted to read as "Chinese language") or not knowing what Indochina is or in general oversimplifying the East Eurasian picture and never clarifying your arguments on this matter enough but yet insisting that you were right. I won't ask for an apology (I almost never do) but I do think that you are as much in fault as I am, if not more.

2. The more I look into the matter the more confusing and unclear I see it, specially in what regards to your claims of correlation between P/B survivals and tonal languages.

3. I am highly allergic to being patronized and strongly inclined by nature to slam the door and head elsewhere when I feel insulted that way.

When I explain that this is beside the point, you then make a beeline to the Andamans to point out that their language isn’t tonal either. And when I counter by pointing out the many instances of indigenous tone language in New Guinea, you find some other reason to dismiss the whole idea.

Because your arguments are not convincing on this point. It's not your fault that SE Asia (south of the Chinese border) is largely lacking any linguistic evidence from the Paleolithic, with only Andamanese (and arguably Austronesian) language families (both non-tonal) but I do think it is lack of rigor on your side to insist on such correlation when the evidence is so weak and contradictory.