> What a number of us are trying to point out is
> that Reisner's methodology has no bearing on
> Vyse's. Other than the subject matter they were
> investigating they had very little in common other
> than English as their Mother tongue.
Reisner was from a more 'sophisticated' era. Would you say that Vyse's methodology was less questionable, more questionable, or equally questionable? Are you saying Vyse should be given some sort of asylum and was immune from the methodology of the day?
> The only way Scott can deal with the facts is to
> change them. he couldn't find his Podex, so he
> has to undiscover all those indices that he
Which is exactly what I say about Egyptology - they have to undiscover all those indices that they are wrong.
> the little statue
> totally ignores the volumes of commentary from
> history regarding the causeway and it's reliefs
> buys into theSphinx debate merely to hint at the
> possibility that the authors of his Podex existed
> at sometime.
> etc etc ad nauseum
> WE won't get inot the number of times RB has
> objected to his hijacking of his theories
"WE" don't care how RB has objected to what how many times. Irrelevant.
"ad nauseum" (a popular cliché these days) applies to the alt statements and not the MS who repeat the same statements over and over? Our repeated questions make you nauseated, how do you think we feel about your answers?
> Never wanted to shoot the messenger. Just the
That is NOT the picture the hundreds of insulting posts have conveyed.
By insulting the messenger this somehow negates the message?