> I try to respond to virtually every single
> relevant point made by posters. Yours only get
> response when it's in my tactical interests.
Clearly a false statement as you often avoid questions you don't like.
They understand the PT
> only in terms of later language and later belief.
...and you cannot read either the old language or the new one....
> They can't entertain the possibility that
> something even bigger than the great pyramids
> changed because Egyptology is the science of
> studying changeless stinky footed bumpkins who
> dragged tombs up ramps.
See here is another of your brain cramps. Less than 1% of Egyptologist have anything to do with pyramids - but you refuse to see that. Really sad
> > No they ain't you pointed to a ditch
No its something and here the point what about all the other ditches why are they not important?
> And you still can't understand metaphysics or its
I understand them just fine. You've tried to use 'metaphysics' as an excuse to avoid providing evidence and a 'reason' to change what the AE to your modern interpretation - how has that worked for you?
> There have been very few observational scientists
> in the last 4,000 years. There is only me with
> two distinct metaphysics.
Cladking your ego is getting to big to fit on this planet.....
> I'm not a very good scientist of any stripe at
> all, though. I'm not too awful as a nexialist
> though and I have a knack for deconstruction and
> reverse engineering.
No you suck at reverse engineering - what you do is just make stuff up, ignore the engineering and the numbers and repeat the same hopeless claim hundreds of times
> Just keep repeating this and "they mustta used
> ramps" and surely it will come true.
You've tried repeating they are debunked and everyone just laughs at you. Again link to where you did this debunk? You cannot just another in a long long list of empty claims
> Then how come ramps have been debunked?
They haven't just some nut on the internet keeps saying that and people laugh at him
> It's significantly overbuilt to deliver about 18
> tons of water every fifteen minutes. This allowed
> them to also transport air down it on windless
Cladking you forgot the golden rule - you have no credibility - no one believes you when you make up stuff like the above - Lets see the calculations then and of the course the BIG problem no source of water.....
> I've never attacked science!
On a daily basis
I often attack
> peoples' misconceptions about it.
Like you thinking you do it?
Even some of
> the greatest scientist have or had some strange
> ideas about how or why it works or what the
> results mean. Indeed, there will be some
> wholesale changes going forward.
Besides having no credibility you also are a rotten denier.
> Inventing, building, operating, and maintaining
> funiculars was not easy. It required 40,000 years
> of science.
A good example of avoiding the question and puting something you made up - yeah hard to find anybody who used that system huh? I wonder why that was?
> I'm very sad I wrote an abstract just for you and
> you missed it.
Was that the one where you scrawled, "I'm right and everyone is going to suffer when I take over the world"