На тоя господин доста одавна му казах че се е насрал с тия македоностични писания, в една предишна тема постнах и неговия отговор, но за любопитните, ето го отново неговото оправдание:

"The essential point is that there is no scientific answer to the
question whether two close variaties A and B are forms of one language
or two different languages. The only thing is to respect the decision of
the speakers themselves. And I do not have in mind linguists of Skopje,
but the Slavic speakers of those towns and villages in Northern Greece
where a language very similar to that of the Konikovo Gospel is still
spoken. My friends there in Greece call their language "Macedonian", and
I respect their opinion.

Moreover, we do not know how the author of the manuscript called the
language. We do not even know who he was. A much later editor (Pavel) of
the manuscript called it "Bulgarian". In the articles of the
"Carigradski vestnik" it was called "Bulgarian", "Macedonian-Bulgarian",
and even "Macedonian". Everybody agreed that the languages/dialects of
"Macedonia" and "Upper Bulgaria" were somehow different, though the
speakers understood each other. (You may know that the speakers of
Swedish and Norwegian understand each other equally well, still the
linguists of Oslo are not producing "lies" when they say that the
Norwegians have a language of their own.) But as I said, my main
principle was to respect the opinion of the present-day speakers of the
area. Doing otherwise would be against good linguistic practice."