> > Just how do you back up "style"?
> With observation, for a start. To judge the
> style, you first need to see it.
Hellllo, that's what I said.
> So you do understand. So, whose eyes were active
> in this case? Yours? Have you seen the
> “glyphs” you claim are of “a completely
> different style than the cartouches”? If not,
> how can you tell?
> If there are photographs, where can we see them?
Are you pretending to be stupid to lure me into one of your twisted games.
Why do you ask questions you know the answers too. It ain't gonna work
> You posted statements. Assertions. Your
> statements need backing up.
Because you say so? I don't think so. You're demands are of no consequence to me.
> The new (without question) paradigm case of
> “grandstanding” is your telling me that I’m
> not interested in a subject I’ve verifiably
> researched for circa 23 years (and yes, I’m
> talking here about the “Vyse forgery” claim
> We saw this first in 1998 and we saw it again
Really. You saw this in 1998 how? Clairvoyance? I don't think you saw any such thing.
> You really need a picture to tell you what a joint
I don't care if you call it a crack, a joint, a seam.
> > Wow, how could you discuss something you hadn't
> seen yet?
> Easily. Joints in masonry are generic, much more
> so than ancient Egyptian cursive script. You
> know, the kind of thing whose style you pronounced
> on without having seen it (or can you tell us
Not playing your strange game. If you have a sincere question, ask it. If you have interest, say so. If you know something we don't, present it. Poop or get off the pot Stower. You're boring the readers with this little game.
> > Or is this just another attempt at grabbing
> > by seniority[?]
> I have it already, through having done the work.
I hate to pop your bubble, but you do not have superiority, in any sense of the word, on this board or on the subject of Vyse's forgery.
Your statement was toooo funny. A perfect way to end this exposé