Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > No, Doctor, there you go again,
> > rewriting the discussion. It started with
> > your asking this question: “Any explanation for
> > why it appears without a phyle name?” It has
> > taken four (4) posts to put you right on your
> > misuse of the word “phyle”.
> >
> > It is Dunning-Kruger foolishiness when you
> > (vastly) overrate your own competence and fail (or
> > refuse) to recognise the competence of others, in
> > fields in which you have barely begun to learn.
> >
> > You still haven’t got how an ˤprw name
> > is formed. Hint: the royal name is part of it.
> >
> > How you can presume to affect superior wisdom on
> > these matters escapes me.
> >
> > M.
. . . and here he is doing it:
> As I said, never mind.
That’s right, folks. When Doctor Dunce is caught (yet again) talking crap, pay it no mind. You have your instructions.
> Does anyone else know the why the other cartouches
> are followed by painted ("crew name") glyphs but
> this half cartouche is not?
Try starting by getting the facts right, Doctor Femano.
We note the informal diminuitive “glyphs”, conveying the message that Doctor Femano has an easy familiarity with (and facile competence in) these matters.
> Also, there is at least one instance of such
> glyphs in a lower chamber that seem to not
> be associated with any cartouche. Does anyone know
> the meaning of those glyphs when they're not
> associated with a cartouche?
Seem not to be⸮ What’s that mean, Doctor⸮ Do you not know it “with certainty”⸮
I challenge the claim. Cite the specifics, Doctor.
> I'm simply trying to understand . . .
I’ve noticed, Doctor Femano, that when you employ such phrases as “I’m only” or “I’m simply”, what follows is reliably a lie.
> . . . what the translation luminaries believe . . .
⸮
> . . . are the connotations . . .
⸮
> of each different format that we [sic] see in
> Campbell's Chamber:
>
> - cartouche without crew name [sic!]
> - cartouche with crew name [sic!]
> - crew name without cartouche [sic!]
I challenge the claim that “we” see any such thing.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > No, Doctor, there you go again,
> > rewriting the discussion. It started with
> > your asking this question: “Any explanation for
> > why it appears without a phyle name?” It has
> > taken four (4) posts to put you right on your
> > misuse of the word “phyle”.
> >
> > It is Dunning-Kruger foolishiness when you
> > (vastly) overrate your own competence and fail (or
> > refuse) to recognise the competence of others, in
> > fields in which you have barely begun to learn.
> >
> > You still haven’t got how an ˤprw name
> > is formed. Hint: the royal name is part of it.
> >
> > How you can presume to affect superior wisdom on
> > these matters escapes me.
> >
> > M.
. . . and here he is doing it:
> As I said, never mind.
That’s right, folks. When Doctor Dunce is caught (yet again) talking crap, pay it no mind. You have your instructions.
> Does anyone else know the why the other cartouches
> are followed by painted ("crew name") glyphs but
> this half cartouche is not?
Try starting by getting the facts right, Doctor Femano.
We note the informal diminuitive “glyphs”, conveying the message that Doctor Femano has an easy familiarity with (and facile competence in) these matters.
> Also, there is at least one instance of such
> glyphs in a lower chamber that seem to not
> be associated with any cartouche. Does anyone know
> the meaning of those glyphs when they're not
> associated with a cartouche?
Seem not to be⸮ What’s that mean, Doctor⸮ Do you not know it “with certainty”⸮
I challenge the claim. Cite the specifics, Doctor.
> I'm simply trying to understand . . .
I’ve noticed, Doctor Femano, that when you employ such phrases as “I’m only” or “I’m simply”, what follows is reliably a lie.
> . . . what the translation luminaries believe . . .
⸮
> . . . are the connotations . . .
⸮
> of each different format that we [sic] see in
> Campbell's Chamber:
>
> - cartouche without crew name [sic!]
> - cartouche with crew name [sic!]
> - crew name without cartouche [sic!]
I challenge the claim that “we” see any such thing.
M.
