> No, all of them. You seem to have a thing against
> tombs as such.
Lots of people were buried in tombs. Most common people were merely planted in the desert. Most of the tombs were mastabas.
> On the contrary, I think it’s clear these many
> years on that the Pyramid Texts do not say
> anything clearly, unequivocally or incontestably.
This is only clear because people have been trying to deconstruct the language. When you read this sentence you have to determine a meaning for each word in order for it (the sentence) to make sense. Modern language speakers do this "deconstruction" automatically. We must unlearn the ancient language as babies in order to learn modern language and the chief thing we must learn is how to deconstruct what people are saying. You can teach babies speech much faster by giving thempointers like this when they are ready for it. Just say a word can have two meanings which is too many to a little one. This deconstruction occurs in real time and is the chief source of confusion in modern language. It's bad enough that words have many meanings but they also have connotations and few people are very familiar with a dictionary. The deconstruction is so complex that no two people will take exactly the same meaning.
The PT is completely consistent and it's consistent with nature but we can't see it because we deconstruct it. The meaning in ancient language disappears if you deconstruct it. Meaning is from a perspective in a stated context. You must understand this context which is impossible if you deconstruct it.
The PT appear to be gobbledty gook because we're trying to understand it like it was written in modern language. It looks like nonsense because we're reading it wrong. For most practical purposes it is translated OK but we are all reading it wrong. You have to make a conscious effort to stop it. You can practice by intentionally trying todeconstruct this sentence wrongly. Then read the PT without deconstruction.
> The point is, it’s a non-ramp method. And it
> got published.
The exception proves the rule. You know Charles Ragano has also been published extensively and proposes a method very very similar to mine.
> I’m sorry, but all of this stuff about
> “Egyptologists” talking endlessly about
> pyramids and ramps is a fiction.
I'm well aware that I use hyperbole to get peoples' attention but I don't think saying "Egyptologists believe in ramps" is any sort of exaggeration. I can't count the number of times I've read where they said "the Egyptians must have used ramps". They use high falutin' words but this is what their sentence means.
And I'm also aware that Egyptologists specialize and many don't care how the pyramids were built but I can't launch into perfect scientific descriptions of models every time I want to point out that the "ramp" concept is pervasive among Egyptologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc, etc and vice versa. I'm just trying to talk like the average Joe and not like a modern scientist. I try to use tautologies to force people to follow my point. The problem here is communication and not semantics, linguistics, or the most common definition for each word. I understand this turns some people off but I have only one way to use English and I'm trying to say things that seem absurd or aren't readily understood by most people. It usually takes weeks just to open up a dialog. If there's a simpler way to say any of this, I don't know what it is. I guess I demand a lot of a reader and a whole lot of suspension of disbelief.
Part of the problem as well is that most of what everyone believes is untrue and i'm trying to use sentences that are actually as true as what the ancients wrote. I don't do well at this but accuracy and comprehensiveness are nearly as important as communicating the ideas.