Brian, the reason it's so difficult to discuss anything with you is that you always are so quick jump to mainstream conclusions without providing a single iota of evidence to back up your position, you deny the alternate hypotheses without giving a shred of consideration to the arguments presented, and then quickly go off on your predictable sarcasm, intimidation, and name calling that only serves to weaken your already very tenuous position. Your latest post is simply another hallmark example....
> As a reader here, most of the time, I often
> wondered why Ori, Jon, Mr. King, and Audrey were
> so vehement in their ludicrous claims of ancient
> civilization origins of the Pyramids at Giza,
> their claims of ramps being debunked, their
> constant assertions that Egyptology is wrong on
> most everything, and their voluminous efforts at
> debunking reality. Now we know that they are Scott
> Creighton's personal lackeys.
What have I said that would make me Creighton's personal "lackey" any more than what you said makes you Reisner's or Hawass' personal lackey? At least I've presented evidence, but what have you presented other than perhaps the same old "we're right until you prove us wrong"?
Can you really do no better than that to debate the alternate hypotheses?
Nothing in what follows in your post speaks at all to your "lackey" allegation. You present no new evidence, to don't rehash any old evidence, and you don't specifically present anything that contradicts or otherwise disproves any aspect of the alternate argument. You simply requote a few descriptors of Scott's book that are merely intended to sell his book, and resort to name calling.
How on earth do you suppose that adds any scholarly strength to your position?
> I will leave the rest of his book's claims up to
> the experts on this board.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?